Commons Sitting of 22 February 1864

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee*—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — Summary Procedure (Scotland)*; Court of Justiciary (Scotland)*.
First Reading—Railways Construction Facilities* [Bill 29]; Railway Companies' Powers* [Bill 30].

DENMARK—BALTIC COAST LIGHTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation of a statement which has appeared in the public journals, to the effect that the Prussian authorities in Schleswig have extinguished all the Coast Lights in that locality on the shores of the Baltic; and, if so, whether British shipping will not be exposed to great inconvenience and risk in consequence of that proceeding; and whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, such a proceeding is in accordance with the usages of civilized warfare, in cases where the safety of neutral vessels is thereby compromised?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON, in reply, said, the Government had no information as to the extinction of the lights in Schleswig to which the newspaper reports appeared to have referred; but they had received information of lights being extinguished in the Prussian port of Swinemunde. That information would have appeared in the Gazette last Saturday, but that it arrived on Friday night too late for insertion. It duly appeared, however, in all the London morning papers. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member as to the usages of civilized warfare, he hardly felt competent to give an opinion; but, so far as his belief went, it was, that belligerents usually protected their own interests in. the best way they could, without much regard to the interests of neutrals.

KERTCH PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Paymaster General, For what reason the distribution of the Kertch Prize Money to the Army has been so long delayed, and when it may be expected to be made?
  MR. HUTTsaid, in reply, that he was aware that the delays in the distribution

  859
  of the Kertch Prize Money had occasioned great disappointment, but it was impossible to pay it away till the persons entitled to share it were accurately known. There must be, not merely nominal and numerical lists, but also a statement of the rank held by individuals when the capture was made. When the House last year decided to award a sum of money in consideration of the stores and guns captured at Kertch, all the regiments concerned were serving in India, and some of them at very distant points. The Prize Rolls had since been received from most of the regiments, but from two of them, the 42nd and 71st, they came in a very imperfect state. Those two regiments were stationed on the extreme North-west frontier of India, and the 71st was at the time engaged in military operations. There was, consequently, much difficulty in communicating with them; but, at the beginning of the present year, the Adjutant General made special application on the subject to the officers in command of those regiments, and there was every reason to believe that the necessary documents were now on their way. As soon as they arrived, no time would be lost in distributing the money.

DENMARK—EMBARGOES ON DANISH AND GERMAN SHIPPING.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received by Her Majesty's Government as to the embargo to be placed on Danish vessels in German ports, or on German vessels in Danish ports, and as to the time which will be allowed for vessels to clear; whether German vessels are subject to capture at sea by Danish cruisers; and whether any information has been received as to the blockade of Prussian and German ports, and the regulations affecting the same?
  MR. LAYARD: Sir, I am glad to have this opportunity of giving an answer to my hon. friend, as a great number of applications have been made to the Foreign Office from the various shipping interests of the country upon the subject. When the unfortunate war broke out between Denmark and the German Powers, an embargo was placed by the Danish Government upon German shipping in Danish ports, and by Austria and Prussia on Danish shipping in German ports. It was then
  860
  understood—indeed, this Government was informed—that six weeks' time would be allowed to vessels to clear out before being subjected to the embargo. In that sense the information was given to the country, but since then a large number of captures have taken place at sea by Danish vessels. Her Majesty's Government was requested by Austria and Prussia to prevail upon the Danish Government not to capture German vessels at sea. It was thought a wrong and very extraordinary proceeding; but the Government declined to take away from the Danes that which they considered a fair means of resisting what we considered to be a most unjustifiable and unwarrantable aggression on Danish territory. Consequently, Her Majesty's Government declined to take any action to induce the Danes to refrain from capturing German vessels at sea. Her Majesty's Government has been informed, therefore, by the Governments of Austria and Prussia, that an embargo will at once be enforced on Danish vessels, and that no time will be allowed them to clear from the ports. I have no doubt that the Danish Government will adopt the same course, and that no time will be allowed to German vessels to clear from Danish ports. At present, Her Majesty's Government have no intimation of any intention on the part of the Danes to blockade any German port, and of course there are no regulations to produce.

  CHINA—CAPTAIN OSBORNE'S EXPEDITION.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Colonel SYKES,
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he hoped to produce the papers relating to Captain Osborne and Mr. Lay very shortly, perhaps in the course of the present week; and the remainder of the correspondence, which was more voluminous, he hoped would be ready next week.

THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask, Whether it is proposed to go into the Navy Estimates that night; and, if so, what is the latest hour at which they will be taken?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply, said, he would make an appeal to those hon. Gentlemen having Notices upon the paper relating to naval subjects to postpone them until an opportunity had been afforded him of stating the intentions of

  861
  the Government. In the event, however, of hon. Members not acceding to his suggestion, he did not propose to bring in the Navy Estimates later than Nine o'clock that evening.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—INTEGRITY OF DANISH MONARCHY —THE CORRESPONDENCE.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: I wish, Sir, to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question to which by this time he is well accustomed. I want to know, how the Danish papers are going on? Perhaps, also, he will give us some detailed information as to whether the whole of the copy is now in the hands of the printer; and, if not, whether he intends to confine himself to the employment of the Foreign Office printers, or will extend his operations to some of those larger firms which could turn out the whole correspondence in thirty-six hours with the greatest ease.
MR. LAYARD: Sir, the noble Lord should be aware that the Foreign Office papers are papers of great importance. It is really more than absurd to suggest that these papers should be sent out of the Foreign Office to any other printers. If any document of a character to injure the public service were abstracted surreptitiously, should I not be the first person held responsible by the noble Lord? The Foreign Office have very limited means of printing, but I hope to-night or to-morrow all the copy will be done. There is a large portion of the papers almost completed at present, but still requiring the last revise. I am most willing to give an instalment, if the House declares its opinion that I should do so. My only object is that the House should have the whole case before it, otherwise I do not think it will be fairly treated. The papers, I trust, will all be produced next week.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I wish, Sir, to know, whether I rightly understood the Under Secretary to say the other night, that the Foreign Powers concerned have given their assent to the production of the documents relating to Schleswig-Holstein?
MR. LAYARD: I never stated that we required the permission of any Foreign Power to publish these papers; but, as a matter of courtesy, it is usual, before publishing a document communicated to us by a Foreign Minister, to ask whether he has any objection to its being published.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Has the question been asked?
MR. LAYARD: Of course it has been asked.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: And have they assented?
MR. LAYARD: As far as we have gone yet.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: What other Powers have you got to go to?
SIB JOHN WALSH: I do not quite understand the answer of the Under Secretary to the question put by my noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil). I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that these papers are undergoing some process of selection. I wish to ask him whether the Government intend to lay all the papers before Parliament, or only a certain selection or extracts from the despatches?
MR. LAYARD: When hon. Gentlemen see the papers I apprehend the greediest will not ask for more.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

DENMARK AND GERMANY—INTEGRITY OF DANISH MONARCHY.

  THE CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to make an inquiry of Her Majesty's Government as to our relations with Denmark, but I do not see the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) in his place; and if I pursue the inquiry for a moment, it is because it is not the first time we have been so unfortunate, at this critical period of public business, and I almost despair of seeing the noble Lord in his place when information can be given to us. In reference to the Question asked just now by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), I must say that I do not think that the Government are acting considerately and fairly to the House of Commons in this matter. The first night of the Session I called the attention of the House to the remarkable circumstance that no papers were presented or promised on the all-absorbing subject of the hour, and the most important topic in the Speech of the Lords Commissioners. The noble Lord at the head of the Government seemed to be somewhat irritated that any com-

  863
  ment should be made on that subject. He said the reason why the papers were not promised in the Speech was that the Ministers had a desire not to lengthen the Speech, but that, of course, the papers would be produced, and that it was not necessary to inform the House of what every Member had a right to expect. Well, it was a very curious thing, of which we were not aware at that moment, that almost at the same time another account was given in another place by the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary on the same subject, which did not at all agree with the explanation of the noble Lord at the head of the Government; for when in another place surprise was expressed on the first night of the Session at the absence of any papers on Denmark, the Secretary of State explained the matter in this way—he said that the negotiations had most unexpectedly terminated; he gave the House to understand that Her Majesty's Government had no anticipation that they would have so terminated, and that consequently no preparation had been made for the production of the papers; and the impression in another place was, that there was no prospect of the papers being shortly produced. Then, when frequent appeals were made to the Under Secretary of State, all that we could obtain from the hon. Gentleman was to deprecate the pressure and to lament the great task which had been put upon him, of having to prepare and print papers extending to 600 pages; and to-night he says that the quantity of the papers will astonish and satisfy the House. Sir, allow me to remind the House that before the Crimean war the House met on the 31st of January, and that on the 2nd of February, papers laid on the table the first night were not only printed, but distributed, and were in the hands of Members. And what were those papers? They were in two parts, one consisting of 400 pages, the other of 378, being, according to the estimate of the Under Secretary of State a much more considerable mass of papers than those which are now to be laid before the House. They were presented on the first night of the Session, and in three days they were in the hands of every Member. Moreover, in that case the negotiations were not finished at the time, for it was not till the 27th of March following that her Majesty announced that negotiations had fruitlessly terminated,
  864
  and that war was about to be declared. Under those circumstances, the House had the advantage of the great mass of papers prepared for them while the negotiations were pending, and while the opinion of the House could be brought to bear in a manner calculated to influence events. Therefore the position taken in another place that papers ought not to be produced till the negotiations are terminated, is not correct in principle or warranted by precedent. Take another case, which occurred in the present Parliament. What happened after the termination of the negotiations which preceded the Italian war? Why, the moment the new Parliament was formed, I presented the papers to the House. We had, it is true, no opportunity of considering them, for immediately afterwards the noble Lord (Earl Russell) sanctioned and supported a vote of want of confidence, principally on account of our management of foreign affairs. He was successful in his Motion, he succeeded us in office, and took his seat on that (the Ministerial) bench, and about a week afterwards he, with great frankness, announced that he was pursuing precisely the same policy with his predecessors. However, I must say that the noble Lord persisted in that policy for a very brief space. For the last four years he has pursued a line peculiar to himself, and I congratulate the noble Lord on having established a name which bears terror to no country except his own. As regards the papers in question, I think, so far as precedent is concerned, so far as the benefit of the public service is concerned, it is clear that, according to the habit of Parliament and those rules and principles of common sense which exert more powerful influence in the House than even Standing Orders, it is clear that this is the first occasion of equal importance that the House has been left so entirely in the dark. Negotiations have been going on in this case for weeks and months and years, just as those which formerly took place relating to the differences between the Latin and Greek Churches; yet, in the latter case, the noble Lord, on the 2nd February, 1855, laid the papers on the table. But, left as we are in this forlorn condition, having sat here for several weeks, and with the possibility of shortly meeting our constituents, we are unable to give them the slightest idea of what has happened. In addition to this, much has happened in the interval which might have afforded the

  865
  Government opportunities of imparting very important and interesting information to the House of Commons, which would have thrown some light on the state of Europe. The other night an hon. Gentleman rose and asked a question of importance as to the relations between Germany and Denmark. The noble Lord at the head of the Government answered the question, but incidentally; and, by-the-bye, he informed the House that Her Majesty's Government had agreed to mediate between the contending parties; that they had proposed an armistice; and that they had made the proposition under circumstances which they regarded as favourable to its acceptance. He intimated with delicacy, but with no great amount of precision, an expectation that Austria at least would take a sensible view of the case. Now, let the House pause and consider the importance of that announcement. There are the Ministers who, year after year, have contended in this House, that it is most unwise to propose a mediation between contending States, if there is no chance of that mediation being accepted. You all know—both sides of the House are aware—of the instance to which I allude; and, although I do not wish to introduce a name and a subject which might excite unnecessary controversy, still we are all aware that, year after year, this great maxim of statecraft has been impressed upon the House by the noble Lord and his Colleagues. What was the natural inference, then, which the House drew on the occasion? They said, "If these Ministers who will not sanction mediation between contending States, except with a probability of success, have agreed to mediate between Denmark and Germany, it is quite clear that they expect that the result of their mediation will be successful." That was the natural conclusion to which the House came; and every Member went home almost with a conviction that there was a chance of seeing some conciliatory and honourable termination of these great and deplorable disasters. A few days afterwards there was an authentic rumour— at least a telegram which bore the appearance of authenticity—that these negotiations had failed, that Her Majesty's Government had attempted to mediate, had proposed an armistice, and that the result had not been satisfactory. Still, it was only a rumour. I came down to the House to give an opportunity to the noble
  866
  Lord to offer those explanations which every one in the House, and every one in the country, awaited with the greatest anxiety. Every one expected that a Minister, and a Prime Minister, who had made that communication to the House on Friday, with these rumours circulated and credited in every part of the metropolis, would follow it up as was his duty to do, and come forward in his place and enlighten and guide public opinion. But the noble Lord was not here. I appealed to the noble Lord's Colleagues. I asked Her Majesty's Government, I asked every Member of the Cabinet, who on such a subject one would imagine to be sufficiently well informed and impressed with a sense of their common responsibility, and would have been only too ready to satisfy the natural desire of the House and of the nation. There was a dead silence. At last, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who appears to do all the work of the Government, rose, and with becoming modesty, asked permission to announce to the House that Her Majesty's Government had made another diplomatic failure. All the information he gave was limited to that result. The House did not want to be assured of the want of success of Her Majesty's Government, and of the disappointment which they and the country necessarily felt; but they did want some light to be thrown upon the subject—they wanted to know the reasons which had induced the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who is so opposed to mediation unless there is a great probability of success, and who would not venture to propose an armistice unless assured beforehand that it would be assented to—to lead the House to believe that one of the invading Powers, at the very moment when he gave the notification, was apparently animated by more rational and more conciliatory sentiments than we had given her credit for —one would have thought that the noble Lord would have made it a matter of special public duty to have come forward and entered into the necessary explanations. But the noble Lord was not here. And what followed? Some little time after that an hon. Gentleman asked another question about this subject of Denmark and Germany, respecting which the House of Commons are, I believe, the least informed of any public body in Europe. And the noble Lord, replying to an inquiry whether Jutland had been invaded, gave

  867
  an answer in that vein which, in the good old times used to be called "King Cambyses' vein," but which latterly has become peculiarly the property of the noble Lord; and certainly the noble Lord uttered some words which in old times would have alarmed Europe and animated the House of Commons, but which in the present instance were received with that depression and despondency which now usually accompany such expressions on the part of the noble Lord, because experience has proved to us that they generally herald the humiliation of our country. There was a pang of anguish throughout the country when they heard that Jutland was invaded. Everybody felt that that was too much—every one said that that was the last drop in the cup. It was mentioned only yesterday that there was an authentic rumour—I credited it myself—that the Prussians had repented of their conduct, and had relinquished the position which they had taken up in Jutland. They found that they had made a mistake—and they said so. That is the report. The Prussians found that they had made a mistake in going into Jutland—as if they had not made a great many mistakes in the invasion before—and that they had retreated from that portion of the old continental kingdom of Denmark. I believe they had not heard the noble Lord's words at the time—probably if they had they would have remained there. But Monday comes after an anxious Sunday, and we naturally wish to know, is there any truth in that account which has now reached us, that the Prussians have retreated from the ill-advised position which they had taken up?—because, after all, the chances of a general war may very much depend upon incidents of that kind. The noble Lord is again absent, and we are again without any one to guide us on this subject. It is not, therefore, merely with regard to these papers that the House of Commons has been scurvily treated, but in these repeated instances where information and explanation might have been, and ought to have been given to us, the House of Commons is equally treated with carelessness and disrespect. What I want to know from Her Majesty's Ministers—and I hope I shall get an answer although the noble Lord does not present himself—is, on what ground did they rest their hope that the offer of mediation would be accepted by the contending parties—by which of the contending parties was it refused—was it
  868
  refused by the Danes or by the Germans— was it refused by both of the invading Powers? These are all questions of the utmost interest and importance to which we have a right to expect an answer from the Government. On what ground did the noble Lord think that Austria was about to adopt a rational and conciliatory course towards Europe? Is it or is it not true that Prussia invaded Jutland and then receded from the position she had assumed? We want light, we want knowledge, on these subjects from Her Majesty's Ministers. It is our duty to make these inquiries. It is our right to receive this information. Is the House of Commons to go on in this way upon a subject which now engrosses all the interest and passion of Europe—a subject with respect to which men on the Royal Exchange are talking as much as of all the matters of their business—for their business greatly depends on the course of public policy in these matters; I say that the place where the most information ought to be given—the most authentic information—is the House of Commons; and yet this is the place where we obtain the least information and the least authentic information. I ask the House to consider their position — how much it touches their honour in the country. Suppose you were sent to your constituencies to morrow—I put that inquiry before you because there are frequent rumours that such an event may not be far distant—how would you meet your constituents? Suppose a man in the crowd to say "How about Denmark?" what answer could you give? This touches the honour and the interest of the House of Commons. I want to put the House — not merely the Gentlemen on this side, but the House generally—in their right position. It may be a matter of perfect indifference to her Majesty's Government that they are the derision of every Court in Europe, but we do not want to be the laughing-stock of our constituents. And, therefore, we must make an effort to put an end to this highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. We must take some means by which we can obtain authentic information—by which these papers may be placed on the table—and by which we may obtain some explanation of the negotiations which Her Majesty's Government have commenced and conducted unsuccessfully without any communications being made to Parliament, and which must unquestionably, in their character and con-

  869
  duct, greatly affect the course of future events.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is wise in the tone in which he has referred to the absence of my noble Friend from the House; because most certainly, if in the annals of this country, there has been any man who ever occupied the dignified position of my noble Friend, and who by unsparing sacrifices of his own comfort, with even more serious risk to health, has been ready at all times to place himself on this bench, whenever he could serve the House of Commons, that man has been my noble Friend. It may, perhaps, have occurred to the impartial auditors of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that it is a matter of some difficulty to know what the object of that speech has been. The right hon. Gentleman, a master of political fireworks, has no difficulty in producing at a moment's notice any amount of display. But these are matters of grave consideration, and those who speak like my noble Friend at the head of the Government, or like my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Layard) the able representative of the Foreign Department in this House, are bound to consider that their business is not so much to inquire how they may say smart things for the satisfaction of those who sit behind them, but how they can hold language which is most compatible with the dignity of the country, and least calculated to compromise it in the eyes of foreign nations in seasons of difficulty. I therefore, Sir, renounce all efforts to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his brilliant career, but, endeavouring to extract from his speech the few practical points to which it referred, I would reply to them as follows: — The real substratum of the speech is the non-production of the papers. It is the fact that the papers relating to Danish affairs were not ready for production at the opening of Parliament. That was explained by my noble Friend (Earl Russell) in another place, and the fact that they were not ready for immediate production, was accounted for by the undoubted and uniform rule of the Department with regard to negotiations which have not yet reached an issue; and, at the same time, my noble Friend and my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Layard) expressing their regret for the inconvenience to which the House was put, promised that the preparation of those papers should be accelerated with all the
  870
  despatch at the command of the Foreign Office. Beyond that expression of regret and that promise, I do not know what it was in their power to do. And when the right hon. Gentleman refers to the case of papers relating to the negotiations preceding the Crimean war, he refers to matters hardly relevant to the point. In the interesting and difficult question relating to the present unhappy collision between Germany and Denmark, or rather the present unhappy aggression of Austria and Prussia upon Denmark, Great Britain has been a friendly bystander. In the negotiations antecedent to the Crimean war Great Britain was a principal, and was one of the two great Powers engaged in carrying that matter to an issue, which ended in hostilities, conducted on a gigantic scale. The right hon. Gentleman, says my noble Friend (Earl Russell) assumed the character of a mediator, and that in that character he made the suggestion of an armistice between the contending parties. It is quite true the suggestion of an armistice was made, but not true that it was made in the character of a mediator. It was necessary to give effect, I will not say to the arguments, but to the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman, that he should himself invent that circumstance, in order to give point to his remarks, because it enabled him to say that that which was done in the character of mediator must have been done with a likely probability of success; and now says the right hon. Gentleman, I will point out how it has not succeeded. But the fact is that the suggestion was not made in the character of a mediator at all. It was a suggestion entitled to attention. It was done in a friendly spirit, and in co-operation with other Powers, animated by a like spirit; and whether a proposal of that nature, judicious in itself, be acceptable to the passions of the contending parties or not, it is my belief that it will be appreciated by the country. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman complains that Her Majesty's Government have not given him information on the undoubtedly very interesting and important question, whether the Prussian forces have or have not evacuated Jutland. The simple reason for that is that Her Majesty's Government do not happen to possess the information. The right hon. Gentleman is not generally behind the age, but he appears to forget the fundamental difference which has been brought about in the position of the

  871
  Government in reference to the receipt of foreign intelligence since the introduction of the electric telegraph; and that information not altogether correct, and sometimes altogether incorrect, or of a most erroneous character, is constantly conveyed to the public on most important points by the newspapers before the despatches addressed to the Prime Minister or Foreign Minister have arrived. With respect to the evacuation of Jutland Her Majesty's Government have had communications, but not of so clear and conclusive a character as to justify them in stating anything to the House on the subject; and I think the House will be of opinion that they would grossly depart from their duty if, in their anxiety to convey early information to the House, they neglected, first of all, to satisfy themselves of its correctness.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: Sir, the explanation just given by the right hon. Gentleman only adds another to the list of confusions already produced by the different interpretations given of the same transactions, not only by Ministers sitting in different Houses of Parliament, but by Ministers sitting on the same bench. As we at present understand the right hon. Gentleman, when Parliament met the Government was engaged in negotiations which promised to be lengthy, and had made up their minds not to give the Danish Papers to Parliament until these lengthy negotiations had terminated. But when we interrogated the noble Lord at the head of the Government on the first night of the Session as to the probable time when the Danish Papers would appear, he gave us no hint that they would he delayed till the termination of the current negotiations. He told us they would appear as soon as they could be got ready; and there was every reason to believe that it was simply owing to a delay in the office where they were printed that they were not produced. I dare say, when the noble Lord returns to the House we shall have yet another version of this mysterious question. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that England was only a friendly bystander in the course of these negotiations. These words exactly hit the reason why we are so anxious to get at these papers. We want to know if England has been nothing but a friendly bystander. In the course of the winter certain Correspondence appeared in "the ordinary channels of information"—in fact, all the information we have received has been through
  872
  the medium of the newspapers—between Earl Russell and the Saxon Minister (Von Beust). I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will say that the letter of Earl Russell was strictly that of a friendly bystander; but not only was that Correspondence with Saxony, but with other German Courts, and we were told that some of it was conceived in a very lively and spirited manner. What we want to know is, whether the Correspondence with Bavaria, Wurtemburg, and, possibly, with Austria and Prussia, was conceived in the spirit of a friendly bystander, as the noble Lord understands that character? We want to know if the same kind of language has been exchanged between England and these Courts as in the case of Saxony? There is another point of the character of friendly bystander on which some explanation is due to the House, and respecting which we are anxious to get these papers —what sort of pledges, real or implied, have we given to Denmark in the course of this friendly bystanding? What have we urged Denmark to do, which she has done on our advice? We have heard something of the recommendation to vacate Holstein, given by the British Government to Denmark. We do not know whether that recommendation was made— it has been carefully kept from us. But it is no unimportant point. With Denmark, time was everything. If she could have lengthened out the war, the elements, which were against her, would have become more favourable to her, and other allies in other directions would have sprung up to prevent her being left alone as she now is; that hypocritical Power, which, with one foot on Venetia and another upon Hungary, turns northward and calls herself the champion of nationalities, if time had been allowed to Denmark, would have been taught the danger of the course she was running. You could not have done Denmark a more fatal injury than in advising any concession which tended to shorten the campaign. Did Denmark consent to evacuate Holstein on the advice of Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, how far is the honour of England compromised by reason of the misfortunes which have since fallen on Denmark? Other rumours have reached us, with respect to which the House is bound to know the truth or the falsehood. It is said, that when Sweden was willing to assist a country belonging to the same blood as herself, our advice

  873
  was interposed, and that delay was urged. We have a right to know how far the doctrine of being a friendly bystander should be carried. The right hon. Gentleman says we are merely a friendly bystander. Does he remember the pledge given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in his place last year? Does he know that not only in England but in Europe the question is asked, "Is Denmark alone?" The noble Lord told us that if the German Confederation crossed the Eider and took Schleswig, they would find that Denmark was not alone. That pledge is well known. It is well known what language we have used to Denmark —how we have pressed our advice upon her—how she has yielded to our entreaties. It is well known how British diplomacy is valued in every German Court. It is well known what our diplomacy is— how we try by mere words to frighten those whose policy we mean to stop, and with what impatient scorn all our menaces have been thrust aside. The recollection of the conduct of the Government in the case of Poland—the recollection of words without deeds to follow them, has produced towards us the most bitter contempt in every Court in Europe. These matters are interesting to the House of Commons. We do not desire merely to read lengthy papers of historical interest. We want to know how far the honour of England has been pledged—how far it has been slurred by threats employed, or hopes held out which have not been followed by deeds— how far our principles have been compromised by promises of assistance, which have not been realized. And, therefore, we have a right to demand that at the earliest period every possible information shall be laid before us.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Sir, it seems to me that if the intelligent foreigner who is sometimes supposed to sit under our gallery be in the House on the present occasion, he would be much puzzled to discover that this was the British House of Commons; for it would seem to him, as it appears to a great many people in the country, that a more docile set of Englishmen never sat upon these benches. Why, Sir, what are we about to do at the present moment? War is raging in the north of Europe, and men are losing their lives by thousands. The Government has explained to-night — or rather it has not explained, for when the Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted the right hon.
  874
  Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) with being a great master of fireworks, his fireworks at least threw some light on the subject; whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer, answering for the Government, succeeded in doing a thing which I thought almost impossible — namely, in making more confused the question of Schleswig-Holstein—for whether we are at this instant mediators for Denmark, or a friendly bystander between the two parties, I defy any Member of the House to understand. The question I want to put is this—In what position does this House stand at the present moment? War is raging in America—war is raging in Denmark—there is a report that Denmark Proper has been attacked by Prussia:— And how is the House of Commons treated? What information have we as to the policy of the Government—as to their past policy and present intentions? Why, Sir, not a single paper of importance has been laid upon the table from which we can obtain information. And if, as has been said, time was of the greatest importance to the Danes, it appears to me that, in this instance, time is of the greatest importance to Her Majesty's Ministers, and that they are determined not to give this information, but to wait for the chapter of accidents—possibly, as is said by Sir Abel Handy in the play, "until the fire goes out of itself." That is the position of the Government; and what is the position of the House? Here we come sneaking to our places day by day, having nothing to do when we are in our places on home policy, and asking questions on the foreign policy of this country; and the House has never yet had an answer what that foreign policy is. While our friendly allies were being butchered, the British Government is looking on as a cool bystander, taking no measures, as far as the House of Commons knows, to afford assistance; and while the First Minister of the Crown in his place uses language of intimidation and menace, this country is reduced to this position, that in every foreign print shop an Englishman is represented a subject of ridicule; and then the Government comes down complacently—at least, I dare say, in a few minutes the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty will come down— and move a vote of a reduction in the navy, while, if there be any truth in the appearance of things, or any meaning in the threats of the Prime Minister, we ought at least to be preparing for a continental

  875
  war. Well, Sir, I say if this be a House of Commons with common spirit, do not let us be satisfied with merely getting up and using language, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly says, throwing up harmless fireworks, but let us have a vote. Now, Sir, I feel so strongly the humiliating position in which this House is placed, that if I meet with any encouragement, I will move a vote which shall test whether these are real or artificial fireworks, and perhaps clear up the fog which hangs on the Treasury Bench. I say, Sir, that we have no business to vote these Navy Estimates, with a reduction of 5,000 men and boys—we have no business to come to the consideration of this vital subject, until we know the position of the country with regard to Germany and Denmark. Therefore, if I meet with common support—unless, indeed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will get up and give some explanation of the Schleswig-Holstein question, which he is said to be so peculiarly master of; unless that happens, I shall move that these Navy Estimates be postponed until the papers relating to the Schleswig-Holstein and German question be laid on the table of the House. I move that the consideration of the Navy Estimates be postponed to this day three weeks.
  SIR JOHN HAYseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Consideration of the Navy Estimates be postponed till this day three weeks,"—(Mr. Osborne,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITH: I am also anxious for a postponement of the Estimates, but not to quite so remote a day as the hon. Gentleman opposite, and on different grounds. Only a week has been allowed for the consideration of the Estimates and the three volumes of explanations which accompanied them, and it is impossible for Members to do justice to them in that time. These papers have been drawn up in a most masterly manner, and they deserve to be studied with care. There are one or two questions of importance involved in the Estimates, which also demand attention. I think a short postponement should take place, to enable the House of Commons to understand what they are voting about. ["Oh!" "Divide!"]
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I have to
  876
  say, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member, that the Government have adopted only the same course as last year, and Members will have exactly the same time to consider the Estimates. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, wishes the House first to read up all the pamphlets he speaks of, it is impossible to say when the Estimates will come on.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I hope the House will not be drawn off the question. I quite understand the dexterity of the noble Lord; but the Navy Estimates are not now the question. The question is, whether or not we are to know anything about Denmark; and, more than that, the position of the Government is in question. If the Ministers are placed in a minority on this occasion, hon. Members can imagine what the consequences must be. [An hon. MEMBER: Nothing at all.] Well, it seems to me quite clear, that if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. B. Osborne) were carried, it would mean that the House of Commons had no confidence in the Government, as regarded its foreign policy. As far as I am personally concerned, that is my opinion, and any Gentleman in the House who shares in the view, and has courage in his heart, ought to vote in favour of the Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, if there be any fog near to my hon. Friend, or anywhere else, it is desirable that it should be dispelled before the House gives a vote. The construction put upon that vote by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) I am not prepared to say is an untrue construction. It is certainly a fundamental, though an ordinary part of the business of the country that is standing for discussion to-night—namely, that we should go into Committee of Supply to consider of the Navy Estimates. My hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) has taken a step perhaps the strongest any gentleman could take by a directly hostile Motion against the Government, without any notice whatever. My hon. Friend, who rallies us upon our state of darkness, appears to me to be hardly in the clearest condition of understanding himself, when on a sudden he undertook to propose this Motion. There are no new facts before the House. The position in which my hon. Friend now finds himself is this, that the papers relating to the Danish negotiations have not been produced. That was a fact perfectly

  877
  within the knowledge of my hon. Friend at the time when notice was given that Her Majesty's Government would, propose to-night to proceed with the ordinary business of the country; and if my hon. Friend was of opinion that the non-production of the Danish papers at a particular time was a reason why we should not proceed with the ordinary business of the country, it was competent to him to have given notice to challenge that course of proceeding. Perhaps my hon. Friend may say that he wishes to declare his want of confidence in the foreign policy of the Government, and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, with perfect frankness and fairness, has placed the Motion on that ground; but again I return to my point, and say it was due to my hon. Friend himself, Her Majesty's Government, and to the House of Commons, if a Motion was to be taken impeaching the foreign policy of the Government, and declaring a want of confidence in that foreign policy on the part of this House, that notice should have been given; and, therefore, when I meet the taunts of my hon. Friend, about our state of darkness, with expressing a doubt that his own mind had not been in the clearest state when he made his proposal, it is because I think the proposal he has made is not consistent with the rules or proceedings of Parliament, and if he entertain seriously that intention, he ought to have allowed hon. Members to be aware of it. If my hon. Friend is disposed to give notice of such a Motion, or if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roebuck) feels that disposition, I can only say, that no person will be more ready to join issue on the subject than those who compose Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I wish to say a word of explanation. It is totally impossible for me, or for any other Member of the House, to know what is the foreign policy of the Government until the papers are presented. ["Order!"] I shall certainly go on with my Amendment.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the House is placed in a position of a critical kind ["Hear!"] Although the hon. Gentleman opposite may think it extremely amusing, I doubt whether those whom he sits next to are of that opinion. I have never concealed of late my opinions on the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government; and I should never hesitate, if any issue were
  878
  placed before me, of giving my opinion, and acting on that opinion by my vote. But I certainly do think that it is of the greatest importance that the country should not say, whatever that decision may be, that the decision was arrived at by a surprise. It appears to me of the utmost importance that there should be fair notice of the intention of the House, and that a verdict should not be taken without such notice, especially in the absence of the head of the Government. It is perfectly open for the hon. Member, and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, to give notice of any Motion they like. They act quite independently of myself and my friends, and if they do not give notice of any Motion, I cannot doubt, in the present state of Europe, that an opportunity will be afforded to the House of Commons, unless they relinquish all their rights and obligations, of expressing their opinion, and that soon, on the foreign policy of the Government. I cannot conceive that this opportunity will not be afforded; generally speaking, we have information before us upon which the opinion of the House can be taken on the conduct of the Government. Papers are laid on the table of the House in all matters of negotiation, and they form the case of the Government, and it is to the advantage of a Government that papers should be produced. This year, we have been placed in a position that we have never been placed in before. We have not that information given to us which, as we have always hitherto supposed, it was for the advantage of the Government should be offered to the House; and, therefore, I am not surprised at the temper and disposition of the House under such circumstances. The Government must feel, I think, after to-night, that it is absolutely necessary, in order to meet the difficulties of this case, no longer to offer apologies which ad nauseam have been administered to the House. I cannot doubt that the papers will be on the table of the House immediately. When they are on the table it seems impossible that the House can refrain from giving a verdict one way or the other upon them. I entreat the House calmly to consider the position in which it is now placed. It is possible that an advantage might be gained over the Government; but assuming that, will it be satisfactory to us to-morrow to reflect that a verdict against the Government has been gained upon

  879
  their foreign policy, without any notice, and in the absence of the Chief Minister of the Crown? I hope soon to see the Chief Minister of the Crown amongst us. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate what was the cause of the absence of the noble Lord. It has not reached me by the usual means of social information, that the absence of the noble Lord was caused by indisposition. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Yes, it is!] I very much regret it, because under all circumstances the presence of the noble Lord is a source of satisfaction, but it would have been easy to have intimated it to the House. Upon that point I will not say another word; but it is an additional reason why the House should not come to a decision upon a vote which is accepted by the Government as a verdict upon their foreign policy. I condemn that policy, not merely with regard to Denmark and Germany only. I think it a deplorable and disastrous policy, calculated to reduce the influence and lower the character of the country. But the House of Commons should come to its conclusion after ample discussion, after an appeal to authentic documents, which would give solemnity and force to a decision of Parliament. That verdict ought not to be obtained by surprise, without discussion, and which it seems the present disposition of the House to do; and I trust the hon. Gentleman (the Member for Liskeard) who, in a very spirited manner, made the proposition, will, on reflection, feel that it will not only be without benefit to the conduct of public business, but that if he persists he will really prevent that very result which he most desires, namely, that the foreign policy of the Government should be fairly considered, and deliberately decided upon.
  SIR. GEORGE GREY: There is nothing which the Government can desire more than that the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons, and through the House of the country, should be expressed upon their foreign policy. At the same time, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) that for the House to come to a vote upon that policy until the papers have been produced would be unworthy of the House. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has already stated more than once that the papers will be laid before the House at the earliest possible moment. When they have been laid on the table it will be open to the hon. Member for
  880
  Liskeard, or any other hon. Member, after proper notice, to take the opinion of the House on the foreign policy of the Government. I have only to add with respect to my noble Friend at the head of the Government, that on calling on him this morning I found him suffering from a severe cold; and, in addition, he had a slight attack of the gout. He told me that he intended, if possible, to come down to the House to-night, but that he was going to see his physician, and that his presence here would depend upon the report he received. As he has not taken his seat, I am afraid that he has been forbidden to come down this evening.
  MR. CLAY: If the Motion before us is pressed to a division, it is as well we should know what we are voting about. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne), whatever I may think of his proposition, has given a very sensible explanation of it. He says it is not for us to come to a vote on the Navy Estimates, which involves the amount of our naval force, without knowing more clearly than we do at present, whether this country is likely to be plunged in war or not. But the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) in his speech, and others by assent, have put an altogether different construction on the Motion of my hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it is to be taken as a vote of want of confidence in the Government. Be it so; but let it be understood that such is not the intention of the hon. Member for Liskeard. With the sense which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to put upon this vote, it may be right and quite consistent with Parliamentary practice that proper notice should be given, and that a subject so important should be debated in the deliberate manner which it deserves; but that is a perfectly different thing from the Motion of my hon. Friend. If that Motion is withdrawn, the Navy Estimates will be proceeded with as a matter of course; the proposed reduction will probably be made; and so the decision of the House will be taken precisely on those points as to which my hon. Friend says we ought to have further information.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: I am not prepared to go into a vote of want of confidence at the present moment, but it is fair on the part of the hon. Member for Liskeard to say, "You ought not to pass

  881
  the Navy Estimates before you know the foreign policy of the Government." I would, therefore, suggest that Ministers themselves, seeing the temper of the House, should put off the Navy Estimates for a short time.
  MR. KINGLAKE: Sir, I think the House was on the point of being misled by the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. He is a gentleman who has so serene a confidence in the accuracy of his own judgment, that he does very frequently in this House state a very foolish proposition with a degree of solemnity that really gives it for the moment something like judicial importance. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely in error in assuming that this is a Motion on the foreign policy of the Government. I understand my hon. Friend to found his Motion expressly on this— that we do not know the foreign policy of the Government. I understand him to say, it is not fit for us to be called upon to vote the Navy Estimates at the moment when we do not know what our navy is to do or to leave undone. I understand him to urge upon the House that Her Majesty's Ministers, or some of them, have been indulging in language of a somewhat menacing kind, and I think it was his view that if the language of the Government was to be menacing, the acts of the Government ought to have some sort of correspondence with it. Therefore I think my hon. Friend did what was quite natural, when he came to the determination that we ought not to come to a decision on the Navy Estimates until we know what the foreign policy of the Government is. I, therefore, entirely repudiate the construction which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield ascribes to this Motion. That interpretation having been put upon it, it was natural for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the high spirit of a Government finding itself challenged, to say that the Government accepted the interpretation; but I say the interpretation was wrong, and I trust my hon. Friend will not act on the supposition that we are going into an inquiry as to what the foreign policy is. I think, however, that in the absence of the noble Lord, and especially that that absence is owing to a cause which we must all regret—on that consideration only, I hope the hon. Member for Liskeard will consent to withdraw his Motion.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: The hon.
  882
  and gallant Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) has stated that he did not make his Motion with the object of damaging the Government, but that his only desire was to get the Danish papers before voting the Navy Estimates. What, however, would be the effect of his Motion? If he is beaten, no other Motion can be proposed to-night as an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply, and the Secretary of the Admiralty will instantly go into the Estimates. If, on the other hand, he is successful, there necessarily occurs a deadlock. There is most likely a dissolution of Parliament; in which case we shall not get any papers for at least a month; or, if we do, we shall not be able to discuss them. If Parliament is not dissolved, but there is merely a change of Government, it will take a fortnight to make the necessary arrangements; and when at the end of that time the new Government are asked what their policy with respect to Denmark is, they will probably say, "We have so recently come in that we cannot tell what our policy is." How would that advance our business? The object of the hon. Member would in any case be completely frustrated. The same thing would happen which happened when I first came into Parliament in 1859; there was an important debate, which turned, as the right hon. Member for Bucks has said, on a question of foreign policy, and yet nobody could get the papers on Italy until the debate was half over. Therefore I do not think that the hon. Member would fare any better with the new Government than he does now with the old one. The hon. Member for Liskeard moves his Resolution because the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty is about to propose a reduction of the Navy Estimates. Probably the hon. Gentleman would like to move them himself, even though he had to propose an increase. Jealousy is the fons et origo mali. But what is the good of saying that we should postpone the Navy Estimates until we have seen the Danish papers, and know whether we are likely to go to war or not. What difference can it make? If we were about to commence hostilities how can you vote more for the navy? When the Crown has asked for certain supplies, and the Estimates have been laid on the table, they cannot be increased by a vote of this House. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, can in no way attain his object by his Amendment. Therefore I

  883
  trust that the hon. Gentleman will take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and not press his Motion to a division.
  LORD DUNKELLIN: Sir, I present myself in a character which I hope will recommend me to the House, as it has been favoured by the Government—that of a friendly bystander. The position appears to be somewhat critical. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) has put an interpretation upon the Motion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, which has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, but which my hon. Friend disclaims. We know that when Gentlemen have made up their minds to put a particular meaning to the words or acts of another man, it is very hard to disabuse them of the idea. It seems to me that what fell from my hon. Friend was supported by common sense and sound argument. It is only rational that before we proceed to vote the sums and the force required for Her Majesty's navy we should have some sort of understanding as to what that navy is likely to be called upon to do. I will not enter upon the confused ground of foreign politics, but it is obvious to every one that demands may be made upon the navy greater than those which we contemplate having to meet at the present moment. Therefore, as a friendly bystander, I want to throw out a suggestion, which I hope will be accepted by the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Admiralty, and my hon. Friend. It is that the consideration of the Naval Estimates should be postponed for to-night. We have been assured by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that all haste is being made with the Danish Papers, and he has gone so far as to say, that if it is the wish of the House he will produce them in portions. I think that course would be acceptable to the House, because we should then get an inkling of what was going on, and should be able to form some opinion. If the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty would postpone the introduction of the Estimates for a short time—say for a week—perhaps the Under Secretary would by that time be able to let us have some of the papers; and upon that understanding I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw his Motion, which appears to have put us all into a little confusion, and some of us into a great fright.
  VISCOUNT INGESTRE: It seems to me
  884
  that the House is placed in a very unwelcome predicament. We have, in the most abject way, asked for papers, which the Government say it is not prepared to give. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Member for Liskeard goes to a division I shall support him. I hope that I am honest enough not to desire that the Government should be condemned unheard; but with all due respect to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, I think that he has put a wrong construction upon the Motion. The question which he has suggested is not the one before the House. There is an important question to come on this evening, and that is, whether the navy should be reduced. I readily confess that I do not like the present Government; I am not sure that I shall approve their foreign policy; but what I do dislike is, that when they cannot get credit for their foreign policy, they should attempt to get credit with the country for an economical budget, which may, perhaps, ultimately occasion a large increase of expenditure.
  MR. WALTER: I am inclined to think that the Motion of my hon. Friend rather tends to place us in a false position. Whatever may be the merits of the policy of the Government—and I do not pretend to say whether they have dealt rightly or wrongly with the Banish question—whatever may be the merits of that question, it is still clear that we want a navy, and must vote means to pay for it. But if the Motion of my hon. Friend is carried, it postpones the whole question of providing a navy for an indefinite period. ["A week!"] My hon. Friend said three weeks; but, whatever may be the time, if you look at the effect of his Motion it comes to this, that the House must decide upon the foreign policy of the Government before they are to decide whether we shall have a navy or not. ["No, no!"] That is the real state of the case. My hon. Friend proposes, and hon. Members opposite accept the challenge, to decide by a formal vote upon the foreign policy of the Government before proceeding to vote the Navy Estimates at all. ["No, no!"] I wish the hon. Member would get up and say whether he believes in the value of the proposed reduction of the navy. I, for one, look upon it as a mere plausible delusion. Every Member of this House knows that if the country decided upon going to war we should have any amount of navy and army. It is a mere delusion for the House

  885
  to suppose that it is promised anything by this reduction of half a million of money in the army and navy. We all know that the Prime Minister would come down to the House and ask for a Vote of £10,000,000, if necessary, to go to war, and the House would vote it if it thought right. Therefore, it is merely putting the issue upon a false and narrow basis to say, that because half a million is struck off the Navy Estimates, therefore the Naval Estimates are to be postponed until we have pronounced a verdict of acquittal or condemnation on the Government and its foreign policy. I hardly think that the House would be acting in a manner worthy of its dignity if it placed the question on such a narrow issue. Whenever the Danish question is proposed, the House will be bound to pronounce an opinion; but in the mean time I think that it would only damage itself in the eyes of the country by resting the question on so trifling an issue.
  MR. NEATE: I am afraid that if the consideration of the Estimates is postponed, this House will appear to assume something of a threatening position towards the Powers of Europe. Such a proceeding will be as much as to say that we think there is no remote probability of our being called upon to increase our Estimates for the purpose of going to war; and that the House considers there is a more proximate probability of war than I hope there is. I think that it would be very undesirable that such an impression should be created by a deliberate vote of the House.
  MR. LAIRD: I should be very sorry to see the consideration of the Estimates postponed for three weeks, but I hope that the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite will be acceded to. These papers have been coming day by day for the last seven or eight days, and, looking at them however casually, it is impossible for any man to give the most cursory consideration to them in the course of that evening. I hope that their postponement for a week will meet the support of those Gentlemen who cry up economy in this House, because we cannot now investigate the items as we ought to do, and if we do not do that to-night we shall be put off to the discussion on the separate Votes, when the Government will have it all its own way.
  SIR HARRY VERNEY: I must observe, that we have yet had no discussion on the Danish papers which have been
  886
  presented. I hope that the House will consent to postpone the consideration of the Estimates for a week, in order that we may, in the meantime, have a discussion upon the papers which are before us. I take this opportunity of asking the House to support me in requesting the Government to give us all the information which they possess upon this subject, more especially the Report of our Vice Consul, who was sent into the Duchies specially to inquire into their condition.
  MR. COLLINS: I would suggest that the best course which the hon. Member for Liskeard could take with a view to prevent the Estimates coming on to-night, would be to withdraw his Motion. The noble. Lord who has charge of the Estimates has promised, that if they cannot be brought forward before Nine o'clock he will not proceed with them to-night. Now, there are a great many Notices on the paper, and it is clear that if this Motion is withdrawn we shall not get to the Estimates to-night.
  COLONEL SYKES: I have gone over the Estimates, and compared them with those of the past year, and I find that upon the reduced scale our navy is equal to those of the whole world besides.
  MR. HENLEY: I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion, is a very sensible one. The noble Lord has said that he will not bring on the Navy Estimates after Nine o'clock. There is Malta Dockyard to be discussed. That is, I think, quite certain to occupy the House from this time until Nine o'clock, if it does not take a good deal longer. We shall then have time to see the Danish papers, which, no doubt, will be produced, and it will save all parties that which would be a very disagreeable thing, asking the Government to postpone the Estimates because we do not know whether or not a war is going to take place. It will get rid of that difficulty; and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman withdraws his Motion, he will, I think, do a very sensible thing.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 47: Majority 173.

  AYES.

  Acton, Sir J. D.

  Ewart, W.

  Agnew, Sir A.

  Ewart, J. C.

  Annesley, Hon. Col. H.

  Fellowes, E.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Bagwell, J.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Baillie, H. J.

  Fitzroy, Lord F. J.

  Baines, E.

  Fleming, T. W.

  Baring, H. B.

  Foley, H. W.

  Baring, rt. hn. Sir F.T.

  Forster, W. O.

  Baring, T.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Baring, T. G.

  Fortescue, C. S.

  Barrow, W. H.

  Fraser, Sir W. A.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  French, Colonel

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Gard, R. S.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Gavin, Major

  Bazley, T.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Gilpin, C.

  Beale, S.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Glynn, G. C.

  Bellew, R. M.

  Glynn, G. G.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Berkeley, hon. C. P. F.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Biddulph, Colonel

  Goschen, G. J.

  Black,A.

  Gower, G. W. G. L.

  Blencowe, J. G.

  Gregson, S.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Bowyer, Sir G.

  Gray, Captain

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Gurney, S.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  Hadfield, G.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Hanbury, R.

  Buchanan, W.

  Hankey, T.

  Buller, Sir A.W.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Burrell, Sir P.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Bury, Viscount

  Hassard, M.

  Butler, C. S.

  Heathcote, Sir W.

  Buxton, C.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Caird, J.

  Henley, Lord

  Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  Hutt, rt. hon. W.

  Cave, S.

  Ingham, R.

  Chapman, J.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Clay, J.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Close, M. C.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Knatchbull - Hugessen, E.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F

  Crawford, E. H. J.

  Laird, J.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Layard, A. H.

  Dalglish, R.

  Lanigan, J.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Lawson, W.

  Davie, Col. F.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Dering, Sir E. C.

  Lee, W.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Legh, Major C.

  Dodson, J. G.

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Du Cane, C.

  Lewis, H.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Lindsay, W. S.

  Dundas, F.

  Lloyd, T.

  Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

  Locke, J.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Dutton, hon. R. H.

  Mackie, J.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Mackinnon, W. A. (Lyming)

  Ellice, E.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Mackinnon, W.A.(Rye.)

  Evans, T. W.

  Malins, R.

  888

  Manners, Lord G J.

  Russell, A.

  Marshall, W.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Martin, J.

  Scholefield, W.

  Massey, W. N.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Mildmay, H. F.

  Scott, Sir W.

  Miller, W.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Moffatt, G.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Seymour, A.

  Montagu, Lord R.

  Sheridan, R. B.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Smith, J. B.

  Morris, D.

  Smith, A.

  Morrison, W.

  Smith, J. A.

  Naas, Lord

  Smyth, Colonel

  Neate, C.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Nicol, W.

  Stanhope, J. B,

  North, F.

  Stansfeld, J.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Tite, W.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

  Tracy, hon. C.R.D.H.

  Packe, Colonel

  Turner, C.

  Paget, C.

  Vansittart, W.

  Paget, Lord A.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Vyse, Colonel

  Paull, H.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Peacocke, G. M. W.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Walsh, Sir J.

  Peel, rt. hon. F.

  Walter, J.

  Peel, J.

  Warner, E.

  Peto, Sir S. M.

  Watkins, Colonel L.

  Pilkington, J.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Pinney, Colonel

  Westhead, J. P. Brown-

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Whitbread, S.

  Ponsonby, hon. A.

  White, J.

  Potter, E.

  Willoughby, Sir H.

  Powell, J. J.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Pritchard, J.

  Woodd, B. T.

  Proby, Lord

  Wrightson, W. B.

  Pugh, D.

  Robertson, H.

  TELLERS.

  Rolt, J.

  Mr. Brand

  Rothschild, Bn. M. de

  Sir W. Dunbar.

  Russell, H.

  NOES.

  Beaumont, S. A.

  Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W.

  Cargill, W. W.

  Knox, Colonel

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Clifton, Sir R. J.

  Leader, N. P.

  Cox, W.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Damer, S. D.

  Long, R. P.

  Dickson, Colonel

  Lonfield, R.

  Doveton, F.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Elphinstone, Sir J. D.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Manners, right hon. Lord J.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Ferrand, W.

  Morritt, W. J. S.

  Getty, S. G.

  North, Colonel

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Parker, Major W.

  Greene, J.

  Roebuck, J. A.

  Greville, Colonel F.

  Smith, Sir F.

  Grey de Wilton, Visct.

  Somes, J.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Stracey, Sir H.

  Haliburton, T. C.

  Sullivan, M.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Talbot, hon. W. C.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Thynne, Lord H.

  Harvey, R. B.

  Verner, E. W.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  TELLERS.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Mr. Osborne

  Ingestre, Viscount

  Sir John Hay.

ADMIRALTY DOCK AT MALTA.

  RESOLUTION.
  CAPTAIN TALBOT, who had given notice on Navy Estimates, to move, "That the project of constructing a Dock at the head of the Marsa at Malta be abandoned, and that the site at the head of the French Creek, recommended by Admiral Sir William Martin and Vice Admiral Codrington, be selected for that purpose," rose to bring the subject of his Notice before the House. The hon. and gallant Member said, that before the Navy Estimates were proceeded with last Session he had received information of the great blunder the Admiralty were about to commit in constructing a first-class dock two miles from their establishments. He was assured that such a dock would neither answer the purposes of the naval service nor of the commercial shipping of the island. He was further informed that the whole scheme was in direct opposition to the opinion of Admiral Sir William Martin and Vice Admiral Codrington, who, if there were any persons capable of forming a correct judgment on the subject were the men, an opinion embraced unanimously by the whole naval service. The two Admirals had, he was informed, written strong letters of remonstrance to the Admiralty, trying to dissuade them from their scheme. He was also informed that the Government had incurred great expense to get possession of the French Creek—he might say unlimited expense, for the Government were as yet unaware of the precise cost which the possession of the Creek would entail. French Creek was of the very greatest importance, for it was available for the reception of the very largest ships; yet the Government having been at such vast expense in obtaining possession of it were now about to abandon it, and had selected a place which presented many disadvantages, and would be two miles off from the rest of their establishments. Considering such conduct on the part of the Admiralty nothing short of infatuation, he had felt it his duty to call attention to the subject last year when the Navy Estimates came on. The case appeared so strong against the Admiralty that he felt very diffident of the information he had received. He asked several questions of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, and the answers he received were very satisfactory. Had the statements made by the noble Lord been supported
  890
  by the facts of the case, they would have tended very much to remove his apprehensions; but, on a subsequent occasion, he found that not one of them was accurate. This was a very grave charge to make against the noble Lord. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty proposed a large Vote to carry out the scheme, and in doing so made statements entirely unsupported by the facts of the case. To say the least of it, this showed gross ignorance on the part of the Secretary of the Admiralty. He should leave it to the House to judge whether he was not correct in the statements he had made. He had said his information was that the distance of the place where the Admiralty proposed to make this dock was very nearly two miles from the dockyard. The noble Lord said it was nothing of the sort; he believed it to be about half a mile. Another statement of the noble Lord was equally inaccurate—that the Maltese Government were prepared to subscribe a sum of money towards the expense of this dock. The Maltese Government did not contribute one penny for that purpose. He hoped the noble Lord would give some further explanation on this subject to-night. The noble Lord said that it would be unadvisable to adopt the French Creek plan, on account of the shallowness of the water; but, in point of fact, that was a magnificent natural basin, which would receive the largest men-of-war in Her Majesty's service, and had never required dredging within the memory of man. Had he possessed more full information, he should have taken a vote of the House on this subject, but he felt reluctant to do so, and on the earliest opportunity he had asked the noble Lord to lay the papers on the table. He was told it would be highly inconvenient to the public service to produce the papers. This was very unsatisfactory. A large sum of money was involved, yet when they asked for papers they were debarred from information by the Secretary of the Admiralty. He then moved for the papers; the noble Lord opposed their production; but the noble Viscount at the head of the Government rose in his place, and with his usual tact saw the feeling of the House, and said there was no reasonable ground for withholding information. This was on the 12th of May last year. The papers thus promised were not produced till very nearly the last day of the Session, and when produced it was discovered by his

  891
  hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), with his usual diligence, that some very important papers had been, he would not say suppressed, hut, at all events, omitted. One of the papers was a letter written by Vice Admiral Codrington, not long before he gave up the command. In this letter, the gallant Admiral dealt with the whole subject, and pointed out the value of a dock at French Creek, and showed that if a dock were made at Marsa it would be of little or no use to the commercial shipping of the island. He thought, therefore, that the House had ground of complaint against the Admiralty, and especially because in the papers laid before the House there was no detailed plan or estimate for the dock they proposed. Either the Admiralty had adopted the scheme without any proper and detailed estimate, or else having such estimate they had withheld it from the House. The excuses offered by the Board of Admiralty for refusing to carry out the plan recommended by the two Admirals were most extraordinary; and it was very much to be regretted that they should have adopted a plan without previously consulting the two Admirals who were on the spot, and best qualified to give an opinion upon the subject. The Admiralty, no doubt, had been governed very much by the report of the director of works at Malta, Mr. Scamp, who curiously enough objected to a dock at French Creek, because its distance from the existing dockyard would render it necessary to erect new buildings, and would also entail the necessity of supplementary estimates. It was difficult to understand how Mr. Scamp could have arrived at the conclusion, that if a supplementary estimate would be necessary for the formation of a dock at French Creek, which was 800 yards distant from the dockyard, it would not also be required for the formation of a dock at Marsa, which was two miles distant. The blunder in this case Was to him inconceivable; for if the Admiralty had simply made upon the chart a measurement of the distances, they must have seen how great a mistake they were committing. Not having done so, it was a piece of neglect which, when they had discovered their error, they ought to have rectified. The blunder did, indeed, at last become so obvious, that the Board of Admiralty gave up their plans, and, in reply to a letter from Admiral Martin, said they concurred with him in thinking that French Creek would be the best position for a dock when it
  892
  could be obtained. They thus implied that a dock could not be made immediately at French Creek; but that was erroneous, for it was competent for them at once to set about making a dock there. The last letter from Admiral Codrington referred to a correspondence with Sir John Le Mar-chant, Governor of Malta, the effect of which was to show that in 1860 the Governor was contemplating the construction of a dock at French Creek; but that correspondence was not given in the papers before the House. When he found such blundering, he could not have any confidence in the Board of Admiralty, who had been bamboozled by colonial advisers and the local director of works, and, when made aware of their mistake, refused to rectify it. They had been for months in possession of all the facts, and yet had done nothing to supply the want of a first-class dock at Malta; but when he put a question a few nights ago upon this subject—there having been no change in the facts—the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty said, that as there was a conflict of opinion, it had been determined to send out an eminent engineer to make a report. But, why, with all the facts in their possession for many months, was not an eminent engineer sent out long ago? In the correspondence he found, that so far back as January of last year, Admiral Martin wrote a strong letter, and forwarded a letter from Admiral Codrington, pointing out the objectionable nature of the Admiralty scheme, and suggesting that an eminent engineer should be sent out to report upon the subject. The reply was, that the Board had decided upon the Marsa scheme, and saw no reason to send out an engineer. Why, with the same facts, was a different course now taken? Admiral Martin had previously suggested that Admiral Codrington should be allowed to come home, in order that he might place his views before the Board; but the answer was, in effect, the same as that he had just referred to. He thought the Admiralty deserved great censure for their neglect, and waste of valuable time in this matter. The subject was of great importance, because we had in the Mediterranean only two small docks capable of receiving ships drawing twenty-two feet, whereas most of our line-of-battle ships drew, at least, twenty-seven, and, therefore, to allow them to enter the existing docks, the guns, stores, men, and sometimes machinery, had to be removed. There would, consequently, be a delay of some

  893
  days in entering the dock, and the same delay in getting out again. Docking a vessel at any time was a delicate operation, but in the case of an iron-clad ship it was, of course, still more so, for she could not remove her armour for the purpose; and at this moment we had no place in the Mediterranean where a vessel of that class could he taken in. Admiral Codrington, writing as far back as the 2nd of December, 1861, called attention to the subject, and dwelt upon the consequences which might ensue if a delay of six weeks were incurred in sending home British vessels, while foreign nations could have theirs at sea again perhaps in six days. The gallant Admiral stated that, practically, the iron-sided ships could not be docked at all, although it was absolutely necessary that there should be the greatest facilities for their doing so. The Admiralty, notwithstanding their attention was thus directed to the point, had done nothing in the interval to supply this vital want. By an arrangement, entered into in 1860, with the civil authorities of Malta, an exchange of water was agreed upon, the Government acquiring a large creek of great depth in the vicinity of the dockyard, agreeing, in return, to deepen the Marsa for the use of the commercial shipping. The first estimate for that purpose was £125,000, of which cost the civil Government agreed to give half, and if there should be an excess of 30 per cent, to pay a fourth of that excess; but beyond that they refused to bind themselves. It also formed part of the arrangement, that what was called the north-west basin, should be constructed with a depth of twelve feet, for the use of the commercial shipping. The sum named was manifestly inadequate; but, in fairness to the Admiralty, he did not deny that the possession of French Creek was an object worth almost any sacrifice to obtain. Subsequently the Admiralty were led, he had no doubt, by allowing proposals on the part of the Maltese Government, to adopt a scheme which he regretted for the credit of the Admiralty and for the interests of the navy. This was that a first-class dock capable of accommodating the Warrior, or others of our largest class of vessels, should be constructed on the inner side of the north-west basin. But to get access to the dock it became necessary to deepen the basin from twelve feet to thirty feet, which, of course, entailed great additional expense. Moreover, a ship in
  894
  entering would have to turn round or nearly round, the dock being at right angles with the basin, and he need not enlarge upon the confusion and accidents which must occur when a heavy ship 400 feet in length was put into a basin 500 feet long by 600 feet wide, crowded with merchant shipping. In the Estimates for the last and the present year, the Admiralty proposed to deepen the basin and to construct this north-west dock for a sum of £50,000. He did not pretend to have any special engineering knowledge; but he would ask, were the Admiralty in earnest in making this proposal? Such an Estimate he looked upon as preposterous. The Admiralty, no doubt, hoped that the site they had settled upon would prove soft but perfect rock, and that they would have nothing to make but a rectangular excavation. The fact, however, was, that as soon as they cut down fifteen feet below the sea line the water came in quite rapidly; the rock, instead of being perfect, was full of fissures and flaws, and the dock would therefore have to be constructed in the ordinary way and faced with masonry, which was a most costly operation. He would, in the next place, call the attention of the House to the French Creek, where the Admiral—and, indeed, he might say, almost everybody else—thought the dock in question ought to be constructed. That creek was at the end of a natural basin, in which ships could move in any weather, and which could be made available at all times. The Admiralty, he might add, admitted that it was the best site for the new dock, but then they contended there would be great difficulty in commencing the works there at once. He defied, however, anybody who had carefully read the papers to prove that there was in them one iota of argument to establish the justice of that view. The Admiralty, moreover, maintained that the elective members of the Council at Malta were opposed to the construction of a dock at the French Creek, and that the inhabitants generally of that island would think we were breaking faith with them if we were to adopt any such plan. From a letter, however, which had been written by the members of the Council to the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty it would be seen, that those statements were entirely fallacious, inasmuch as in that letter they said that they had no wish that a naval dock should be constructed at the Marsa in preference to the

  895
  French Creek, and that if arrangements could be made so as that the merchant shipping should not be disturbed, they had no objection to the works being commenced at the latter place without delay. The people of Malta, in reply to a letter which had been addressed by the Council to the members of the Chamber of Commerce there, gave expression to a similar opinion. But beyond that the disadvantages of the Marsa were very great. It was difficult of access to the commercial shipping, while the difficulty of vessels turning round in the basin was so great, that there would be constant danger of collision. The French Creek, on the other hand, was always easily accessible, and was free from those dangers which existed in the case of the Marsa, as was clearly pointed out by Admiral Codrington. He regretted that the forms of the House prevented him from submitting a formal Motion on this subject, because he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he thought the hon. and gallant Member had used very intemperate and unjust terms towards him. He had accused him of deliberate mis-statements, of mutilating printed papers, and of suppressing important documents. (Captain TALBOT: No, no!] He (Lord Clarence Paget) begged pardon—he had taken down the words used by the hon. Gentleman. It was true that there were one or two letters from Admiral Codrington which were not in the papers produced; but the fact was he was not 'aware of their arrival, and his hon. Friend beside him (Mr. Stansfeld) informed him they had accidentally been mislaid. There was no desire whatever to keep them from the House. The hon. and gallant Member also accused him of a deliberate mis-statement with regard to the distance between the harbour and the dock. He certainly was not prepared at the time to state the exact distance. The hon. and gallant Member said it was two miles. [Captain TALBOT: Nearly two miles.] He admitted that he had been mistaken as to the distance; but there was no deliberate mis-statement on his (Lord Clarence Paget's) part. In fact, the proposed dock at the Marsa was much nearer to the anchorage of ships of war than the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the House believe. The principal object the Admiralty had in view in agreeing to the con-
  896
  struction of the proposed dock, was that it was extremely handy to the place where ships usually lay, and that large iron-cased vessels could easily go in there and have their bottoms cleaned, and come out without loss of time. He did not believe that any Member of that House was capable of making a deliberate mis-statement, but the hon. and gallant Member had made a very gross mis-statement when he said that the dock was unfit for our iron ships. Now, they had two large iron ships, the Royal Oak and the Resistance, which could be docked in the present dock. [Captain TALBOT: Can first class iron ships go in with their stores on board?] He did not know what the hon. and gallant Member called first-class iron ships. He should call the Royal Oak a first-class iron ship, and the Resistance a very large and powerful ship. However, that was nothing to the purpose. The Government of Malta agreed to give us a certain portion of Malta harbour for our men-of-war, provided we would make another portion of that harbour available for merchant ships, and they told us that if the Government would assist them in deepening the Marsa, they would give us the so-called French Creek. The statement of the Governor of Malta in Council was this— "that the merchant ships should continue in possession of French Creek until all the works of the Marsa should be completed." Would it not, therefore, be breaking faith with the Maltese Government if we were to attempt to occupy French Creek before that part appropriated to the merchant service should be completed? He really thought this was not the proper time to discuss this question. The Government had had reports undoubtedly from two very distinguished officers, Admiral Codrington and Sir William Martin, to the effect, first of all, that the dock could not be constructed for the sum stated in the first estimate, and secondly, that it would be better to adopt the French Creek. Admiral Martin put forward a plan of his own, which the Government considered utterly unfeasible. This was a proof that they could not accept his views as altogether without bias. Last year the Duke of Somerset sent out Sir Frederick Grey and a civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Whit-bread) to report their views on the subject. They reported that they believed this Marsa would be a very valuable dock. They did not deny that French. Creek might ultimately be very available for a

  897
  commercial dock, but it appeared to them this dock in the Marsa could be more easily constructed. The Government had no desire to build in the Marsa more than in French Creek. All they had to do was to be guided by their engineers, and to a certain extent by the report of Sir Frederick Grey and the hon. Member for Bedford. Should they have been justified in the face of the report in breaking faith with the Maltese Government by commencing operations in the French Creek, and in upsetting all the arrangements which had been made? Since then the Government had sent out Mr. Maclean, one of the first civil engineers in this country, who would make a report, and the Admiralty would give it due consideration before they came to a decision on the matter. The Government had taken the best means to ascertain which place would be the best for the public service. He would therefore ask the House not to bind itself to this or that scheme. He denied that the Admiralty, in the course they were taking, were doing a foolish thing. There was an immense increase in the merchant shipping at Malta, and the new dock would be of great utility to the large steam navigation companies who at present had no dock accommodation for their vessels at Malta; so that the money would be far from being thrown away even if it did not answer for men-of-war. He hoped the House would excuse him going into details until they had received the report referred to.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord that the present was not the time to discuss the question brought before them. He thought it was the time. From all he had learned he believed that the Admiralty were doing a very foolish thing, and he hoped that on consideration they would be induced to take a wiser course. He regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford (Captain Talbot), owing to a division having already been taken on another subject, was prevented taking the sense of the House upon this Question. He hoped he would do so on another occasion, and that the noble Lord opposite would not shrink from giving those explanations which the House had a right to receive before voting the large sum asked for, and which he feared would be wasted and thrown away. He was sure his hon. and gallant Friend had no intention of making a personal attack on the
  898
  noble Lord opposite; but he begged to remind the noble Lord that the Question was between an intentional misstatement and a misstatement that was not intentional. The noble Lord did not deny that he had made a misstatement. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I do deny any misstatement.] The noble Lord had just admitted he had made a most important misstatement. He (Sir John Pakington) wished to impress on the House that when they were dealing with a large expenditure of public money they had a right to expect that those who represent the Government should be accurate in their statements. Last year the noble Lord told them that it was only half a mile from the dockyard to the site of the proposed new dock. Now the noble Lord said it was two miles. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: It is not two miles.] He believed it was about one-twelfth part of a mile short of two miles, and that the measured distance was one mile and eleven-twelfths. He need not point out the inconvenience that must arise from so great a distance. The distance of the French Creek from the dockyard was only 800 yards. But there was another grave consideration. He had been told that if they laid out a large sum in the construction of the dock it would be the joint property of the commercial body of Malta and of Her Majesty's Government —so that when a ship of war arrived for repairs it might be that the dock would be occupied by other vessels. They would have to dredge one mile and eleven-twelfths. There was another mistake of the noble Lord. He told them last year that the expense was to be divided, and that the Maltese authorities were to contribute £10,000 towards the construction of the dock. He had been informed that that was not the case, and that the money would be expended in dredging and clearing out the Marsa; and that anything left over would be expended on the dock. But it was notorious to any one who knew anything about the matter that not a farthing would be left. But the concluding part of the noble Lord's statement was the most unsatisfactory of all. The noble Lord had told them that he had sent out an engineer to give them another opinion. They did not want another opinion. They had had opinions enough. It was a question which related to the convenience of the fleet. It was not a question for engineers, but for the Admiralty, and they ought not to depute it to any engineer. He hoped the

  899
  Admiralty would, before they came to the House for a vote on the subject, consider well the opinion of men who must be regarded as authorities on the subject. Sir William Martin had been Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean for the last three years. They had also the authority of Admiral Codrington, whose letter on the subject his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford had thought had been suppressed. When his hon. and gallant Friend accused the noble Lord of having suppressed documents, he was certain he did not intend to speak offensively; but the paper was in existence, they did not get it, and when misstatements were made and papers withheld, he thought the noble Lord ought not to show himself so sensitive. That paper contained the opinion of Admiral Codrington, who had been for four years the Admiral Superintendent of this very dockyard. Who was to be a judge of the question if Admiral Codrington was not? In favour of the dock was Colonel Greene, Director of Engineering Works in England, and a very excellent officer, but not to be compared as an authority with Admiral Codrington. But the Admiralty, not satisfied with the unbiassed judgment of two of the best authorities that could be found, had sent out two Lords of the Admiralty in order to decide the question—Sir Frederick Grey and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). They were all very sorry for the cause which had obliged that hon. Member to resign his office, for no one could have filled it more creditably; but it was no discredit to those gentlemen not to take their opinion when in opposition to such authorities as he had quoted. He was satisfied that to spend money as the Government proposed would be so unwise that the House would not sanction it, and he hoped the Admiralty would abandon the scheme.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEwished to say one word as to the agreement of 1839, between the colonial Government and the Admiralty respecting the position and the use to be made of French Creek. The Governor of Malta wrote home to inform them that the resolution of the Council of Malta, and the whole arrangement for sharing the expense, rested upon the proviso that the merchant shipping should continue in possession of French Creek until all the works intended to be performed at Marsa should have been completed. The Council of Malta would not
  900
  have entered into the arrangement, except for the positive assurance that no portion of the shores or water of the French Creek should be used for Admiralty purposes until the entire works were completed, and any departure from this assurance must be considered a breach of the engagement.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to say that he had counselled no breach of the engagement.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he considered the Government proposition to be altogether of a most extraordinary character. The only money they proposed to ask Parliament for in respect of the plan was a sum of £50,000, and with that they proposed to build a second class dock in Malta. They did not ask for a sixpence for the erection of shops and buildings for machinery, and the providing of those appliances for the benefit of the merchant shipping on account of which the Maltese Government were willing to share the expenses.
  SIR JOHN HAYthought that there were one or two points which it was desirable should be in the possession of the House; and first he would refer to the assertion of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the present dock at Malta was capable of receiving first-class iron-clad ships. The fact was that the Agincourt, Minotaur, Northumberland, Warrior, and Black Prince, drew 28 feet of water; the Prince Consort, Royal Oak, and Royal Albert, 26; the Defence, 23; and Resistance, 22 or 23; and not one of these ships could go into the dock without being lightened. He had himself commanded a line-of-battle ship which drew twenty-six feet of water, and having to put into Malta for repairs, which could have been done in a day, it took nearly a fortnight to lighten her and to get her in and out again. In the case of iron ships, their great weight being in their plates, they could not thus be lightened, and therefore the dock at the Marsa was inaccessible to them. It was proposed only to deepen the harbour to twenty-five feet, and the dock was to be inside the harbour; that was, though the dock itself was to have thirty feet of water on the sill, yet no ship drawing more than twenty-five feet could get through the harbour to it. Ships of war also would have to go to the dockyard to unship stores, and then go to the dock at the Marsa. Something had been said about the uncertainty of the

  901
  opinion of Sir William. Martin; but he (Sir John Hay) could state that Sir William Martin's opinion was that the dock should be in the French Creek, and that to have a dock at the Marsa would be an expensive waste of public money. The question was not whether £50,000 should be spent, but whether the money to be spent at the Marsa would not be wasted. What they wanted was an efficient dock in Malta harbour, and the whole maritime power of the country might be brought to a standstill in time of war if the Admiralty constructed the dock in an improper position. He did not wish to say that any document had been suppressed; but still the Report which had been acted upon was not among the documents which had been printed. All the documents were in direct opposition to the Admiralty, except the Report of Colonel Greene, and this Report was not produced. The Government, however, did not seem to rely much upon the Report, for they said that they were going to send out a distinguished engineer—of whom he did not know whether any hon. Member had heard before—to report upon their own officers. The Government, therefore, seemed to have no trust in the Report which they refused to give to the House. The two Governments, the English Government and the Malta Government, were to make themselves joint-stock owners of the docks, and the Admiralty had agreed that in case the docks should be unfit for use, and the naval authorities should decline to put them into a proper condition, the Malta Government might take possession, and they were to become from that moment the property of the Malta Government. If at any time the necessary machinery was not in a fit state, the Malta Government might raise the question whether the docks did not belong to them for the use of the mercantile community of Malta. He could only say, in conclusion, that he hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Talbot) would, on some future occasion, take the sense of the House upon this waste of public money and gross neglect of Imperial interests.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that nobody doubted the necessity of a new dock at Malta—one that should be able to take in the largest vessel in the navy—and the only question was, in what way such dock should be formed. With all deference for the opinion of Admiral Codrington and Sir William Martin, he must in preference take the authority of the Governor and
  902
  Council of Malta as to when possession of the French Creek could be got. He had been on the spot, and was assured there that it would be regarded as a flagrant breach, of the agreement if the Admiralty-took possession of the upper part of French Creek before the arrangements which had been detailed were carried out. He himself also believed that such a course would be a flagrant violation of the engagements of the country. Any dock constructed at the head of the French Creek, or by the north-west basin at Marsa, would require floating factories or factories on shore; whereas, if a dock were constructed in the mercantile water at the Marsa, it appeared probable that private factories would be established by the side of it. The many large steam vessels which navigated the Mediterranean had now to go to Marseilles for repairs, whereas if there were a dock under English management and of sufficient capacity at Malta, they would infinitely prefer using it. The gallant Officer who had just sat down had stated that when the new dock was constructed it would be impossible for any vessel drawing twenty-five feet to enter it. It was quite true that the mercantile water was all over twenty-five feet; but it was clear from the correspondence that it was intended to construct a channel of width and depth sufficient to give access to any vessel in Her Majesty's service at present afloat. It was said that the new dock would be two miles from the present dock; but it was not two miles from the anchorage, and measured in a line from the present anchorage the two docks would be about equidistant. He did not deny that French Creek was the best situation for a purely naval establishment, but there could then be no private workshops and no assistance from the trade of the harbour. Every argument which had been urged to-night, and many more, had been fully considered. They had heard what the Governor, what the naval authorities, what Sir William Martin, what Admiral Codrington, and what the Director of the Works had to say, and, having had ample time to rectify any mistake, he believed that this was a good and economical bargain for this country, and a wise arrangement on the part of the people of Malta.
  MR. ADDINGTONsaid, that, although the hon. Gentleman told them there would be a sufficient channel, still the situation of the Marsa would be exposed to the prevailing winds which invariably drifted in

  903
  the soil, and the contingency was provided for by a stipulation that the soil should be carried away a distance of two miles. No one conversant with the correspondence could lose sight of the circumstance, that a good deal depended on the construction of a canal to unite the two harbours. But for several years he had heard that if a canal were formed it was very possible that the military authorities, in case of war, would lay their hands upon it. It was admitted that, if it were a mere question of site, French Creek was the place where the dock should be constructed. The question was, not whether they should choose a site which should be convenient for the merchant shipping; when they were called upon to consider a charge upon the Navy Estimates, what they had to do was to consider what was best for the navy. He was credibly informed that if a site on the Yaletta side were surrendered to the merchants, they would prefer that to the site at Marsa, and every naval man, with the exception of one who was connected with the Admiralty, had pronounced in favour of the naval dock being constructed at French Creek. Another advantage which ought not to be forgotten was, that the quarries were close to that site, whereas the stone for the works at Marsa would have to be transported some distance by a very indifferent road. As a naval man, and as one who had had some years' experience and knowledge of the harbour, he could confirm everything which had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Talbot), and from other hon. Members who had taken the same view of the subject.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON DOCKYARDS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LINDSAYrose to call attention to the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty in 1860 to inquire into the control and management of Her Majesty's Naval Yards; and to move, that in the opinion of this House the recommendations of the said Commissioners ought to be carried into effect. He said that he had hoped that the Naval Estimates would be postponed for a week, to give time for considering them; but he desired to make some observations on the Estimates as they stood.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member would not be in order in referring to items in the Estimates, which, were about to be discussed in Committee.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he did not intend to comment upon any items of the Estimates, but to offer some general remarks upon them as a whole. The total amount of the Estimates was upwards of £10,000,000; there was a reduction on last year of £300,000, and on the previous year of £1,300,000. He gathered this from a statement printed upon the Estimates, and which he regretted did not go back for seven or eight years, for then it would have shown that in 1858–9 the amount was £9,100,000, and the year before £8,200,000. The manner in which the reduction of £300,000 was proposed to be effected, was by asking a Vote for 2,000 Boys, 1,500 of the Coast Guard Service, and 500 able-bodied Seamen less than were asked for last year, with some reduction of stores; and yet at the same time there was to be a considerable increase in Vote 8, by adding 2,300 hired workmen in the building and 600 men in the Engineering Departments. Now, this increase could only be accounted for by the supposition that either they were going to spend a larger sum of money than formerly, or that they were about to reduce the stock of timber and other materials on hand, and thus be obliged to ask in future years for increased votes to make good the deficiency in the stock. He objected to the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government. They gave explanations about the most trivial items, bat did not properly account to the House for the larger amounts. Thus details of what each class of seamen received were given.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman of what I stated just now. It appears to me that the course which the hon. Gentleman is now pursuing is exactly that which he said he did not intend to pursue. The Notice given by the hon. Member for Waterford referred to the construction of a dock at Malta, and to a choice of sites. It was of that kind that it could not be debated in Committee of Supply, but could, without impropriety, be brought under the notice of the House; but the course which the hon. Member is pursuing is quite different. He is going into an enumeration of particular items of the Navy Estimates. Those Estimates have been referred by the House to a Committee of Supply, and it is not in accordance with the practice of the House to discuss those items at the present stage.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he did not propose

  905
  to refer to the items of the Navy Estimates, but to a Parliamentary paper laid before the House, which he held n his hand, containing the annual expense for ships built in1862 and 1863.While the Government informed the House of the amount spent in Bath brick and candles, they passed over, without explanation, such sums as £200,000 for "timber, &c.;" and information on these larger items of expenditure ought to be given before the House went into Committee of Supply. Some years ago, the House felt more deeply than at present that the country was not getting value for the large sums which they were expending upon the navy. The late Government appointed a Committee, presided over by Admiral Smart, to inquire into the subject; and the Committee was followed by a Royal Commission on the same subject. That Commission examined the entire question of the dockyards, and issued a Report, in which certain recommendations were made. He wished to know what the Government had done to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and the reasons why they had not carried them out. The Report found fault with the system of accounts as elaborate, while the results were not to be relied on for any practical purposes. The Admiralty had been trying to remedy this; but the accounts had become still more elaborate, and could not be relied on at the present time more than in 1859 and 1860. Then the Commission recommended an entire change in the constitution of the Admiralty. He wished to know why this important recommendation was not carried into effect? As matters stood, there was no responsibility at the Admiralty. The heads of the departments were responsible to the Lords of the Admiralty, but were the other Lords responsible to the First Lord, and was the First Lord responsible to that House? It was said that the First Lord was supreme at the Board; if he was not supreme, and any fault was found with him in that House, could the First Lord for instance say that the blame did not rest with him, but with the civil Lord? And, again, could the civil Lord shift the responsibility to the First Lord? The Commission recommended that there should be a Minister solely responsible for the management of the dockyards and for the administration of the affairs of the Admiralty. He (Mr. Lindsay) would be glad to know whether the Admiralty
  906
  had considered this question. Much good would be effected if there was a Minister of Marine responsible to the country, at the head of the Admiralty, and the other officers responsible to the Minister of Marine. The Commission drew attention to the cost of constructing and converting Her Majesty's ships. He feared that on this point there had been no improvement since 1860, and that a five-pound note did not go further in the building of a ship now than at the date of the Commission. He was satisfied that without a radical change in the administration of the navy they could not have that economy, combined with efficiency, which they so much required.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he must say that he admired the gallant conduct of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland in this matter: he went on hoping against hope, determined never to lose sight of his object, but without the slightest chance of obtaining it. The hon. Gentleman had quoted the Report of the Royal Commission, and he told the House what were the recommendations of the Commissioners. In the first place, they said the control of the dockyards was inefficient, and the Report went on to raise three other objections. But it appeared to him (Mr. Bentinck) that, having arrived at the first objection, the Commissioners might have saved themselves the trouble of arriving at the other three, for they were all included under the one head—the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. His hon. Friend asked the House this question— why the Admiralty had not carried out the recommendation of the Commission, and reconstituted the Board of Admiralty? He believed that so long as the constitution of the present Board of Admiralty existed, so long would the present state of things be continued. The Board of Admiralty was intended to be a body whose duty was to keep the navy of Great Britain in the highest state of efficiency; but it was in fact neither more nor less than a political jobbing office. He spoke not against any particular Government, or any particular individual; he only said that it was inevitable, so long as the Board of Admiralty was constituted as it was—so long as it continued to be not a combination of nautical talent—it would be a political jobbing office, always seeking to serve first the exigencies of party. The hon. Gentleman asked the Government why they had not carried out the recommendations

  907
  of the Commission. In answer, he must say he did not believe that they would give up their position, because such, a question was asked on such a Motion as then proposed. Then with reference to the Committee that was appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Admiralty—at the time it was proposed, he took objection to the constitution of the Committee, because it was composed almost exclusively of officials and ex-officials who were interested in maintaining the present state of things. He ventured at the time to predict what would be the result of the labours of the Committee. After sitting some time on the Committee, and hearing the self-laudatory speeches that were made, he came to the conclusion that the whole thing was an utter waste of time, and he requested the Committee to allow him to retire, and they kindly did so, and the Committee continued to sit till the end of the Session. At the commencement of the following Session the hon. and gallant Member for the North Riding (Admiral Duncombe) was asked if he would move the reappointment of the Committee; and he declined, as he said it was useless. He did not mention these facts to show simply that his prediction had come true, but in order to show that this mode of dealing with the question was utterly useless, for nothing would be done till the House of Commons determined to reconstitute the Board of Admiralty, and did away with the absurdity of putting civilians at the head of the Department who were utterly incompetent for the post. There were plenty of hon. Gentlemen ready to attack the Board of Admiralty, but they consisted of two classes—those, on the one hand, desiring to put an end to the present anomalous state of things; and, on the other, those whom he would call the peace-at-any-price party, who were desirous only of cutting down the vote for the defences of the country. So long as there was this unnatural alliance, and so long as the House of Commons did not take the question fairly in hand, these discussions were useless.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he was glad to think that the hour had passed after which the noble Lord the Secretary of the Navy had stated that he would not bring on the Navy Estimates for discussion, for he did not think they were yet in a position to discuss them. A blue-book entitled "Navy Labour Charges,"
  908
  which did the utmost credit to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), had just been published. It contained an account of almost every halfpenny that had been spent in the dockyards. It would obviously be of the utmost service to the House; but as it had only been delivered four days, and as it contained 196 pages of closely-printed matter, the House had not had sufficient time to make itself acquainted with its contents. Other valuable Returns had also been delivered, which they ought to have more opportunity of studying. He found, for example, a charge of £51,764 for repairs in a single year of the Black Prince. He should like to ask the Government for some explanation of that. The charge was a monstrous one, and he should like to know whether it was the constructor's fault, or whether it arose from a fault in the building of the ship? He should like also to ask why the construction of naval barracks had been delayed? No one could doubt that they would be of the greatest possible utility to the service, and of the greatest importance to the health and well-being of the men. The matter had been discussed for two or three years past, and money had been voted for these barracks; yet not a brick had been laid. He should be glad to have some explanation of this. Again, there was the great question of how the iron-cased ships of the country were to be clad? They had had all sorts of targets proposed for the naval service; and he should be very glad to hear from his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), than whom there was no higher authority in Europe, his opinion on what had been done. His own idea was that it would have been very desirable to have tried the experiment upon the Minotaur target before the ship was built. Why was not that done? Nobody would say that the armour of the Warrior was not superior to that of the Minotaur, Northumberland, and the Agincourt. He had recently read a pamphlet by Mr. Chalmers, who asserted that he had invented a target which was better and cheaper than any that had yet been made. By the liberality of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), Mr. Chalmers had been enabled to construct a target on his plan, and it had certainly answered better than any other that had been tried; but while the Government had (very properly) repaid the hon. Member for Finsbury for risking the £1,200 which

  909
  he had advanced, they had left the unfortunate inventor to bear his share of the cost, besides his loss of time and trouble. All that the Admiralty had done was to inform him, that although his plan was the best tried it was not suitable for the naval service. But surely they might have found out that before the experiments were tried, if such were the fact; and thus have saved the inventor his trouble, expense and disappointment. Referring to another point, he had heard that the Russian Government had invented a very powerful gun, and that they were using steel shot. He hoped his noble Friend would not, at any time, say that we had got the right gun; and although it was well known that the Government had been making numerous experiments, at an enormous cost to the country, everybody knew we had not yet got a gun suitable to the requirements of the times. He believed that no other country had a better gun, and so in that respect We were in the same state as our neighbours; but we ought to be in a better condition, considering our vast outlay on the investigation. He believed that if we had mortars which would throw long ranges, they would be very valuable; and he hoped the Admiralty would turn their attention to the construction of them. He desired to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty a question of which he had given notice, On what grounds the Admiralty have declined to apply to Parliament for a Grant of Money in aid of the erection of a Church and Schools at Brompton, it being understood that the Admiralty did apply for a Grant of £4,000 for the erection of the Church of St. James, Devonport?
  MR. FERRANDsaid, that the hon. Member for Sunderland had given notice of his intention to bring before the House the recommendations of the Commission of 1860–1 appointed to inquire into the management of Her Majesty's dockyards. Now he (Mr. Ferrand) said, that the Dockyards Commission was formed of four Whigs and one Tory, and, therefore, he had not much confidence in its reports. Last Session he had complained of the tryanny practised, not only by the present Admiralty, but by that of every Whig Government. He was then told that his language was too strong; but he did not think it was at all stronger than the circumstances demanded. The tyranny exercised over the workmen was in fact so great, that many of them had been driven
  910
  from the dockyards, and he was informed that the Admiralty had had agents travelling through the country to try and induce shipwrights to leave the private and enter the Royal yards. He was informed, moreover, that petitions were constantly coming up from every class of mechanics and artisans complaining of some hardship or other. The hired men had also grievous complaints, which they had laid before the Board, and which were most ably set forth last summer in a letter published in The Times. He should be glad if the Admiralty would allay the bad feeling which now existed, and would show to the working men employed in the Royal dockyards that justice would be done them. Again, the appointment of Mr. Reed as Chief Constructor of the Navy had been looked upon, not only by the superior officers of the dockyards, but by the country, as a gross political job, and it had forced into retirement the ablest shipbuilder in the world, Mr. Laing. Last Session, the Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood) gave him a flat contradiction in what he said as to the tyranny of the Whig Admiralty, which prevented a free exercise of the franchise by the dockyard employés. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "When I was First Lord, the patronage of the dockyards was given over to the Superintendents, and since then the Board of Admiralty have had nothing to do with promotion or employment in the yards. But the best proof of the independence of those employed in the dockyards is the hon. Gentleman's presence here; for if at the last election for Devonport, the dockyard votes had not been given at all, the Lord of the Admiralty would have been returned, whereas, in fact, with a majority elsewhere in his favour, the Lord of the Admiralty had a majority of 150 dockyard votes against him." [3 Hansard, clxix. 784.]
  Now the reason that he (Mr. Ferrand) had obtained a large majority of the dockyard voters was that Admiral Symonds, then Admiral Superintendent at Devonport, had the manliness and the honesty to give notice that every voter would be allowed to vote according to his conscience, and, that if any man, whatever his position, dared to interfere, he should instantly be dismissed. It was an extraordinary sight to witness the joy which this notice created among the workmen, who were then, for the first time, able to exercise the franchise freely. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), who was a member of the Dockyard Commission, had made this statement,
  "He believed the present Controller was doing everything in his power to establish a proper

  911
  system, and he arrived at that conclusion from the result of the Devonport election. If the Admiralty were not doing their duty there, the Government candidate would not have been defeated."—[3 Hansard, clxix. 837.]
  Now, his constituents were as honest, as high minded, and as high principled as the electors of Glasgow, and they felt that a grievous wrong had been done them by the hon. Member, whom he had challenged to give his authority for such a statement. That hon. Gentleman had said the Admiralty were doing their duty on that occasion. He would show the House how the Admiralty had performed their duty in the borough of Devonport. In 1859 he contested the borough, and while doing so grievous complaints were made to him, that, for many months previous, many vacancies had occurred in the dockyard which were not filled up. After the election he came to London and called at the Admiralty. There he saw a gentleman connected with the Board, and told him of the complaints he had heard at Devonport, asking him whether they were true. The reply he got was, that it was the duty of the Admiral Superintendent at Devonport to send the monthly lists of vacancies up to the Controller of the Navy — that those lists were received by the Controller, and, if the vacancies had not been filled up, would be found in his office. The gentleman who made this statement went to the Controller's office, and on returning said, "You are wrong; there are no vacancies at all at Devonport." When he afterwards mentioned at Devonport the answer he had thus received, he was told, "Oh! you must not believe the Whig Board of Admiralty; they are bamboozling you." He went back to the Admiralty on the subject, and saw the same officer, who again brought him the same reply from the Controller's office. That occurred three or four times; but a few days before Lord Derby's Government left office, and his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) retired from his position of First Lord, he returned once more to the Admiralty, when he saw the same officer, and told him that there were lists of vacancies in the Controller's Office, and that unless he were furnished with them, he would get a friend in the House of Commons to put a question to the Secretary of the Board on the matter, when the truth must come out, for he did not care to be trifled with any more. The gentleman then went away, and returned in half an hour, bringing a
  912
  list of between thirty and forty vacancies which had been kept back for a long time, thereby depriving many honest men of their fair right to promotion. He saw the Secretary, who introduced him to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), and the latter assured him that if he continued at the Admiralty the matter would be investigated. But the change of Ministry took place, and in a few days after the Duke of Somerset became First Lord every one of these vacancies was filled up, so as to strengthen the Whig Government. Then, moreover, it was said to the people of Devonport, What an idle fellow Sir John Pakington is! He would not take the trouble to fill up these offices. The Whigs have given you these appointments, —they are the men who ought to be at the Admiralty." He was put in nomination for Devonport by his friends, against Sir Michael Seymour, and was nearly returned without canvassing an elector. On the following week he contested the borough against Sir Arthur Buller. The Whig Admiralty became alarmed, and put on the screw. A gallant friend of his, who held an office of small emolument under the Horse Guards, received a letter signed "Sidney Herbert" (who was then at the War Office), telling him that any interference with the election would be visited with dismissal. It was then hoped that there would be fair play. Great excitement prevailed on account of Sir Baldwin Walker, the Controller of the Navy, having kept back the thirty or forty appointments, and it was generally thought that he would be returned. But to the amazement of everybody, his friend, who had received the order above stated from the War Office, received a communication from an official in the Admiralty, which was placarded in the borough, informing the electors that the reason why the vacancies had not been filled up was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a mistake in his calculations—that there had been no money for the salaries of the officers in question, but that now there was some and the offices had been all filled up. That letter was signed by Sir Baldwin Walker, then Controller of the Navy. What could the Admiralty say for such conduct as that? Well, he and his friends thought that a very bad proceeding, but very like the Whigs. The nomination came, and when he went to the Town Hall whom should he see acting

  913
  openly as fugleman to the Whigs but a naval officer in full uniform, who held high office in the dockyard? The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), who had become very Whiggish, seemed to think this a laughing matter, but he would find out his mistake. The Whig fugleman in full uniform interrupted the proceedings in a most offensive manner, and the remark was made at the time that he would not be long in getting his reward from the Duke of Somerset. Well, the Commission to which he had referred was appointed, when, sure enough, the Whig fugleman, for his services at the Devonport election, figured as one of its members. ["Name, name?"] He was described as "Our trusty and well-beloved Robert Spencer Robinson, Esq., Captain, R.N." The Commissioners sat in London on the 25th of October, 1860, and Sir Baldwin Walker, then Controller of the Navy, was examined before them. When asked by the Chairman (Mr. Peel), What have you to do with promotion in the yards?" Sir Baldwin answered,
  "The papers on the subject of promotions are forwarded to the Admiralty, and are generally marked to me for report; sometimes they come to me direct. I submit my report to the Board, and that is generally dealt with by the Secretary to the Admiralty: he has these promotions."
  The Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), the only Conservative on the Commission who did his duty honestly and faithfully, then took Sir Baldwin Walker in hand and sifted him thoroughly. He asked, "I understand you to say that your recommendations are not conclusive?" The answer was "No, I merely submit the whole case to the Admiralty for their decision." To the next question, "I understand you to say that you submitted the cases of promotion to the Secretary?" The reply was, "It goes to the Admiralty; it is in the Secretary's department; he has the promotions." This was Sir Baldwin Walker's evidence; and it directly contradicted the assertions of the Secretary of State for India—namely, that the Board and the Secretary had nothing to do with the promotions; that they rested with the superintendents. Sir Baldwin was also asked whether the results of an examination for a vacant inspectorship would be conclusive in the candidate's favour, and he said, "Not always. Where there is a very good practical man who has passed a good practical examination, and who has long servitude, that is considered also." "By whom?" Answer: "When recom-
  914
  mended by the local officers, I concur in their opinion. I submit his promotion to the Admiralty." Sir Baldwin added that the examination papers were submitted to him sometimes in the first instance, and at other times they went through the Admiralty; that "since the Duke of Somerset has revised my department, they generally came direct to me." In some cases they went to the Secretary. Then Sir Henry Willoughby stepped in again. He asked, was influence ever brought to bear in these appointments? The answer was—
  "I have no reason to believe that any undue influence is used in any way. I believe that officers are conscientious in the recommendations they make. 'The Secretary has power to act upon these unless they have reference to the promotion of high officers in the dockyards. That rests with the First Lord."
  Sir Henry Willoughby then squeezed out the Duke of Somerset, showing how the First Lord of the Admiralty interfered with the appointment of the working men in the borough of Devonport.
  "I may mention," the reply went on, "that the Duke of Somerset has very carefully looked into most of the promotions since he has been in office, lie has been excessively particular on the subject with the view of making the best selection"—politically speaking, he (Mr. Ferrand) might add, "I have generally gone into the question with the Duke about promotion. That originated the difference with the Secretary. The Duke since that period has gone into the question himself."
  An ex-First Lord and former Secretary of the Admiralty (Sir. Charles Wood) said the patronage was given over to the superintendents, and since then the Board of Admiralty had nothing to do with promotion in the yards. He hoped the House would allow him to read two or three more questions and answers, that the country might know what was being done by the Duke of Somerset and his colleagues at the Admiralty—
  "Has it come to your knowledge that vacancies have been kept open for periods of time?—There have been two or three instances in which the vacancies have been kept open longer than usual; the appointments have been kept back by the Admiralty on one or two occasions. In consequence of the great pressure in my department, when so many vessels were being built by contract, and one thing and another,"—[There were no vessels building by contract, but it was the "one thing and another,"]—"there was a little delay on my part in transmitting some of the names of the candidates for promotion, in consequence of not having time to go fully into the question.
  "Have any such cases of delay occurred in the dockyard at Devonport?—There was a statement made that the appointments had been kept back

  915
  from political motives, but that was not the case. It was principally in consequence of the great pressure, but there were other causes. The returns which were sent up were not considered satisfactory. I had to send the papers down on two or three occasions for more full explanation."
  Not one paper ever was sent down.
  "What number of appointments were delayed? —I cannot at this moment call the number to my mind, but my impression is that there may have been four or five vacancies.
  "In that one dockyard?—I think so, but I may mention that that is not at all detrimental to the public service. The moment there is a vacancy the officers of the yard have the power of putting a person to act. It is submitted to the Admiralty, it goes through my department, and I recommend it for approval until the permanent appointment is made.
  "Chairman.—When you say that there is no loss to the public, what knowledge have you of the person selected being the most eligible in the yard?—You depend chiefly upon the officers in the yard."
  Then came the hon. Member for Glasgow, the Royal Commissioner (Mr. Dalglish), and he put this question, "Is it a temporary appointment?" That is all. That was the only question the Member for Glasgow put, in order to sift this corrupt proceeding on the part of the Admiralty. He should have been delighted had that hon. Gentleman put half-a-dozen searching questions. Why he was silent he could not understand, unless it was that he was sorry such an exposure should be made of the Whig party. Sir Henry Willoughby put this other question—
  "There is no regulation in your office that the Controller should report vacancies within a given period?—No, it does not state any particular period. I look to the requirements of the service. For instance, with reference to Devonport, it has just occurred to me that there was another reason why some of the appointments were kept back. We had a greater number of men in the yards than it was intended to continue after the financial year; we had many hired men, and as there were already a number of acting officers who would have been reduced when the men were discharged, I did not think it desirable that an additional number of acting officers should be appointed for so short a time."
  He should like now to read a few questions and answers from the evidence of Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Pasley, Admiral Superintendent of the dockyard, when these disgraceful proceedings occurred. He used the word "disgraceful" advisedly. Sir Thomas Pasley was seriously compromised by the statement of Sir Baldwin Walker; he appeared before the Commission and was examined. In answer to question 2,522, Sir Thomas Pasley stated—
  916
  "What are your powers as Admiral Superintendent as to promotions in this dockyard?—I have no powers at all as to promotion; the promotions are regulated by examination, and reference to the Admiralty; the results of the examination are sent up to the Admiralty.
  "Are you bound to report vacancies within a given time?—The vacancies are all reported at the end of every month.
  "Are the vacancies filled up by the Board of Admiralty on the recommendation of any authorities in this yard?—No, the vacancies are filled up by the result of the examinations; the candidates for promotion are examined professionally by the professional officers; and they are examined in mathematics and arithmetic, and so on, by the schoolmaster of the yard; this is all sent up in a tabular form with the number of marks gained by each candidate, and it is referred to the Admiralty for their decision, and they almost invariably, unless the Superintendent reports that there is a very good reason indeed to the contrary (which he sometimes, but very seldom does), select the man first on the list for the promotion; it arises from the number of marks.
  "Since you have been Admiral Superintendent, have vacancies in the higher offices ever been allowed to remain unfilled for a length of time?— No.
  "Or in any offices?—Two years ago there was a long interval, when some of the subordinate officers in the ropery were not appointed; but I do not know what it arose from—there was some delay.
  "In whose department would the recommendation of the officers in the ropery be?—It comes through me from the master-attendant; it is under the master-attendant. But the delay was at head-quarters, it was not here, it was somewhere between Somerset House and the Admiralty.
  "Did that delay extend over a year?—No, it began in one year and ended in the other, but there was not a year's interval."
  In the statements of Sir Thomas Pasley and Sir Baldwin Walker, he found the following striking contradictions. In answer to Sir Henry Willoughby: "Has it come to your knowledge that vacancies have been kept open for periods of time?" Sir Baldwin Walker replied—
  "Inconsequence of the great pressure in my department, when so many vessels were being built by contract, and one thing and another, there was some little delay on my part in transmitting some of the names."
  Sir Thomas Pasley said, "The delay began in one year and ended in another, but there was not a year's interval." The vacancies were denied at the office, and there was no shipbuilding by contract in 1858 and 1859. Again, Sir Baldwin Walker said—
  "The Returns which were sent up were not considered satisfactory. I had to send the papers down on two or three occasions for more full explanations."

  917
  And Sir Thomas Pasley said—
  "The delay was at head-quarters; it was not here. It was somewhere between Somerset House and the Admiralty (the Controller's office.)"
  Sir Baldwin Walker said—
  "The vacancies not being filled up is not detrimental to the public service. The moment there is a vacancy the officers of the yard have the power of putting a person to act."
  Sir Thomas Pasley said, "There was a long interval, when some of the subordinate offices in the ropery were not filled up." Now, he believed the fact was, that the thirty or forty permanent appointments that were kept open for ten months, were filled up in ten days after the Duke of Somerset became the First Lord of the Admiralty. Sir Baldwin Walker again said—
  "It has just occurred to me, that there was another reason why some of the appointments were kept back; we had a greater number of hired men in the yards than it was intended to continue after the financial year."
  Yet, in his election letter he stated—
  "The vacancies have been filled up. The reason why they were not filled up at once was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a mistake in his calculations of the sum of money required."
  With regard to the promotions, Sir Baldwin Walker said—
  "My impression is, that the Secretary has the power to act upon them. He has the power of deciding the question."
  But the gallant Admiral afterwards contradicts himself when he says—
  "With the view of making the best selection, I have generally gone into the question with the Duke with reference to promotions. This originated in a difference between the Secretary and myself. The Duke, from that period, has gone into the question himself."
  But the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) states—
  "When I was First Lord, the patronage of the Admiralty was given over to the superintendents, and since then the Board have had nothing to do with promotion in the employment of the yards."
  On the evidence taken before the Commissioners becoming known to the Duke of Somerset what steps had he taken to explain or deny them? None. And when the Royal Commissioners desired Sir Baldwin Walker to again attend before them and give further evidence, what did the Duke of Somerset do. Why, he shipped him off to the Pacific in one of the swiftest steamers the Admiralty had at their command, and when that House decided the gallant Admiral should again attend before the Royal Commissioners, the Duke of Somerset treated that demand with contempt, and sent out an
  918
  old tub of a steamer after him, knowing very well that she could not overtake him. In fact, it was more like Sir Baldwin Flyer in the fast steamer and Sir Baldwin Walker in the second one. Who was the controller of the navy? The Whig fugleman. That was his reward for disgracing the uniform he wore. He (Mr. Ferrand) was sorry to say, that there were complaints now in the dockyards of the same kind of tyranny being practised; and he believed that Admiral Robinson and the Duke of Somerset were as carefully working the electors of the present day as the Duke of Somerset and Sir Baldwin Walker were shown to have been in that evidence that was extracted by the ability of his hon. Friend. No wonder there was dissatisfaction in Her Majesty's dockyards. No wonder the Admiralty were obliged to send agents through the country to get men to work in the dockyards. This was not the case in former days. It was Whig tyranny that had brought this state of things to pass. And who were the men who were acting in this manner? Why, those who had hunted the noble-hearted Augustus Stafford to death. If the right hon. Baronet the ex-Lord of the Admiralty had been present in the House, he (Mr. Ferrand) would have asked him to reconcile the statement he had made last year with the evidence that had been produced that night. There was no denying it—the Duke of Somerset could not deny it. He had now had the satisfaction of showing the Duke and Sir Baldwin Walker up in that House for the manner in which they had acted in the borough of Devonport. They had given orders, he knew, that he was not to be returned for that borough again. He himself believed that he would sit for the borough of Devonport long after the Duke of Somerset had ceased to be the First Lord of the Admiralty; and if he should be driven from office to-morrow, by a vote of censure from that House, for conduct such as he (Mr. Ferrand) had brought under the notice of Parliament that evening, he believed that there was not a man in the British naval service, or throughout the country, who would not rejoice at his being driven from office.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, that if all the charges brought by the hon. Member against the Admiralty were true, the electors of Devonport were the most patriotic constituency in the kingdom, and that they deserved an eternal monument

  919
  for sending the hon. Member to Parliament. However, the matters to which the hon. Member had recurred had been already so thoroughly sifted, that it was quite unnecessary for him to say one word in reply.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Wednesday.

RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES BILL.
Bill to facilitate, in certain cases, the obtaining of powers for the Construction of Railways, presented and read 1°.[Bill 29.]
RAILWAY COMPANIES' POWERS BILL.
Bill to facilitate, in certain cases, the obtaining of further Powers by Railway Companies, presented and read 1°. [Bill 30.]
SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Bill to make provision for uniformity of Process in Summary Criminal Prosecutions, and prosecutions for penalties in the Inferior Courts in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR.

COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Bill to provide for the alteration of the Circuits of the Court of Justiciary in Scotland, and for holding additional Circuit Courts, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Sir WILLIAM DUNBAR.
House adjourned at half after Ten o'clock.